From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753629Ab1JLUXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:23:19 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33776 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751511Ab1JLUXS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:23:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4E95F711.2090004@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:22:41 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: Borislav Petkov , the arch/x86 maintainers , Tigran Aivazian , Xen Devel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/microcode: support for microcode update in Xen dom0 References: <4E94E1E5.4070505@goop.org> <20111012101615.GA14966@aftab> <4E95D9E7.6090304@zytor.com> <4E95E7FE.6050302@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <4E95E7FE.6050302@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2011 12:18 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > If there were a general shift to "this is how we're going to do > microcode in the future", then Xen will happily go along for the ride. It *is* how we want to do microcode in the future. There is a prototype for the Intel hardware side here; we just haven't had time to finalize it partly because I got pulled onto the kernel.org situation. > But for right now, this patch seems like the pragmatic solution. No. > I think the real question is where there's something objectionable about > the patch itself? "It does something that is slightly broken on real hardware and totally broken for a hypervisor and perpetuates it, while still needing enabling?" -hpa