Re: new cmdline parameter disable_cpu_features= (microcode update?)

[Piotr DÄbrowski]

Thank you for your reply.

> You cannot change the microcode patches - they're supplied by the CPU
> vendors as is and are signed/encrypted.

Is the microcode's header encrypted too?
I thought there are two Processor Flags fields ('pf') available [1].
Are they what I think they are?
Is the header signed too, or only the actual microcode blob below the
headers is?
Sorry if I get it all wrong and there is no use for further discussion.

Do you think there is any point in actually implementing the
kernel-only disable_cpu_features= option upstream
and then somehow convince the userland to respect flags reported by
the kernel instead of those from the CPU?

[1] arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h:
struct microcode_header_intel {
unsigned int            hdrver;
unsigned int            rev;
unsigned int            date;
unsigned int            sig;
unsigned int            cksum;
unsigned int            ldrver;
unsigned int            pf;
unsigned int            datasize;
unsigned int            totalsize;
unsigned int            reserved[3];
};
[...]
/* microcode format is extended from prescott processors */
struct extended_signature {
unsigned int            sig;
unsigned int            pf;
unsigned int            cksum;
};

Best Regards,
Piotr DÄbrowski
--
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/