On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:25:18AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, the only place that invokes
> > save_mc_for_early() is in generic_load_microcode(). While in
> > generic_load_microcode() only microcode has a n
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:25:18AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the only place that invokes
> save_mc_for_early() is in generic_load_microcode(). While in
> generic_load_microcode() only microcode has a newer version will be
> saved by checking has_newer_microcode(), and this
Hi Boris,
thanks for taking a look,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 01:27:35PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ( drop stable@ from Cc because this is not how fixes get added to stable@ )
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:59:23AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > Currently scan_microcode() leverages microcode_matches
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 01:30:19PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Stable is still left below. with #v4.10+
>
> Do you want to keep this? Also do you want him to resend or you have that
> covered?
No Ashok, read the section
"For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures"
here: Do
Hi Boris
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 01:27:35PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ( drop stable@ from Cc because this is not how fixes get added to stable@ )
Stable is still left below. with #v4.10+
Do you want to keep this? Also do you want him to resend or you have that
covered?
>
> On Fri, Nov 13
( drop stable@ from Cc because this is not how fixes get added to stable@ )
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:59:23AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Currently scan_microcode() leverages microcode_matches() to check if the
> microcode matches the CPU by comparing the family and model. However before
> saving the
incompatible update and caused the failure of microcode update.
For example on one platform the microcode failed to be updated to the
latest revison on APs during resume from S3 due to incompatible cpu
stepping and signature->pf. This is because the scan_microcode() has
saved an incompatible copy
Hi Ashok,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 01:54:42PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Hi ChenYu
>
> I think you can drop the RFC tag.
>
> I suppose you can add Cc stable as well. Boris should return next week to
> take a look.
>
Ok, I'll do and send another version out.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:52:47PM
Hi ChenYu
I think you can drop the RFC tag.
I suppose you can add Cc stable as well. Boris should return next week to
take a look.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:52:47PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Currently scan_microcode() leverages microcode_matches() to check if the
> microcode matches the CPU by c
incompatible update and caused the failure of microcode update.
For example on one platform the microcode failed to be updated to the
latest revison on APs during resume from S3 due to incompatible cpu stepping
and signature->pf. This is because the scan_microcode() has saved an
incompatible
copy
Galileo Centre, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK
"Jon Hulatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/12/2000 10:45:50
Please respond to "Jon Hulatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Linux Kernel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: cpu stepping
hi,
sorr
hi,
sorry to ask this
here but i'm finding difficulty getting this info
elsewhere...
I'm not an assembly
programmer and i know little about cpu's. it's a hole in my knowledge i guess.
i'm looking for some technical introduction doc to explain what diff. aspects of
cpu do, what is steppi
12 matches
Mail list logo
