From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933484Ab1LFOTp (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:19:45 -0500 Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:56511 "EHLO e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933470Ab1LFOTm (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4EDE246D.5000500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:49:25 +0530 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: Ingo Molnar , Fenghua Yu , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , H Peter Anvin , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Tony Luck , Arjan van de Ven , Suresh B Siddha , Len Brown , Randy Dunlap , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , linux-pm , x86 , Tejun Heo , "Herrmann3, Andreas" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] x86: BSP or CPU0 online/offline References: <1321075592-31600-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20111206084230.GC30062@elte.hu> <20111206085816.GA11116@elte.hu> <4EDDE5D0.7030906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111206103500.GD15966@elte.hu> <4EDDF2DE.7020701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111206130020.GB28735@gere.osrc.amd.com> <4EDE20F5.4030601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111206141543.GA19241@aftab> In-Reply-To: <20111206141543.GA19241@aftab> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11120614-5564-0000-0000-000000654212 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/06/2011 07:45 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 07:34:37PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>> Not blindly, the microcode is still verified. >>> >> I saw your other mail about the validity of this whole scenario, and I >> kind of agree to your point. >> >> My thoughts below might not be so relevant/significant considering that, >> but anyways, just to understand what you said above: >> I didn't quite find where the microcode is verified if the kernel happens >> to have the microcode image already. > > Sorry, I might not've been clear enough: it is still verified by the > _hardware_, regardless of whether the ucode loader checks it or not. > Remember, hw guys don't trust sw guys and the reverse holds true too. > > :-) > Oh.. Ok :-) And thank you for the explanation! Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat