From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com (smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com [185.125.188.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A55C65234 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.125.188.120 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731393465; cv=none; b=NhGSvaxSZuqKdWiiB5EHEwCSmPPBFqkdJ5femIjqK5SAzxXSnxP0SRoVp6IcEaYuPUsWwZ2lZHWW9dCBT4XItZK9toPnr2q8ZWNiU6PBQilCPTzRis3nxqcfoKHC9fPa69eMp9q33l0NwcPnNV0R/COMFnmAXDkDarGIfdY4Xug= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731393465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DIhoDMs+ocERMPWwoBsCd61ryEJMxq66Wo/FyZ7XV6U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=blJvf4i9Z4+pPQRpuogSnACpLkTF9lAQzjcuNPUWrQ2K1/TLU6UobXFeP9lXQeQlNiGroY/wtZVPiOi8Ldevz05wy7Rr/sKmROPLDaEDgvOX8KNnDl+1caGLnOT8+OEfSlWnTufvItdezBqgouYZlvKWYvhP9GMDa6e5bJ1seJw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canonical.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canonical.com header.i=@canonical.com header.b=dteLER5Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.125.188.120 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canonical.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canonical.com header.i=@canonical.com header.b="dteLER5Z" Received: from graphene.canonical.com (1.general.amurray.uk.vpn [10.172.193.220]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D87FC3F1E0; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:37:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1731393454; bh=GKUKx7XUX9NIQn1HWD9NcfpALG4TSgUzvapWP/4X8Ok=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=dteLER5ZEWCoo7LZPCZX1d2E0jXEllQcd1l3Nj4mr2E5bFemED5bJzyF+vbfpxvr5 EQhJDnJhWhm2cdll7NG+7XYOhxyQssBkExhhs7pkEYBqGc3LXHeo16lxFbH/+QPl+H sYJrWvVHLsShqj9b2owPIHqsLY0l48lJfkMZ7V8AwtYEI3spQEIzgA74Z9OApCtW/Z jJZucXJHuNXQaApFd6JNpptfjh1zInyL9tmQvXPtSINlkfrZe7Vohxq7OEHs9T6Zk/ fREDfiQ/9yQyUvq3G95jpxUAdburKeykUg4GOTJo2xjlCBcqWHtggk0CBNi2pQ50A2 nBNQ2zHzrI/bw== From: Alex Murray To: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com Cc: bp@alien8.de,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,tglx@linutronix.de,x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/cpu/bugs: Consider having old Intel microcode to be a vulnerability In-Reply-To: <20241107170630.2A92B8D3@davehans-spike.ostc.intel.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:07:27 +1030 Message-ID: <87v7wtvty0.fsf@canonical.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > > == Microcode Revision Discussion == > > The microcode versions in the table were generated from the Intel > microcode git repo: > > 29f82f7429c ("microcode-20241029 Release") This upstream microcode release only contained an update for a functional issue[1] - not any fixes for security issues. So it would not really be correct to say a machine running the previous microcode revision is vulnerable. As such, should the table of microcode revisions only be generated from the upstream microcode releases that contain fixes for security issues? ie. > +{ .flags = X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID, .vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, .family = 0x6, .model = 0xb7, .steppings = 0x0002, .driver_data = 0x12b } should ideally be: > +{ .flags = X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID, .vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, .family = 0x6, .model = 0xb7, .steppings = 0x0002, .driver_data = 0x129 } to correspond with the previous microcode release that contained actual security fixes. [1] https://github.com/intel/Intel-Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-Files/releases/tag/microcode-20241029