Re: [all better] Re: regression: massive trouble with fpu rework

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> And I'd consider us hanging a separate (but not high prio) bug: the kernel should 
> be robust as long as the CPUID data is stable. In that sense the original fix is 
> right (we really want to unmask all available CPUID leaves), but it also masked 
> another (less severe) kernel bug.
> 
> For example virtualization is known to tweak CPUID details creatively, and 
> firmware (as this example shows it) can mess it up a well, so we generally want to 
> treat it as untrusted input data that needs to be validated.

Processor microcode updates can also change cpuid information, at least on
Intel.  There are Intel microcode updates in the field that do this.

Specific Intel MSR writes *should* be able to change cpuid information as
well, as they enable/disable features that are reflected by a cpuid bit.

I have no idea about AMD, though.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/