Johnny Hughes
2018-Jan-23 11:26 UTC
[CentOS] /lib/firmware/microcode.dat update on CentOS 6
On 01/22/2018 10:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:> > > On 01/22/18 09:08, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 01/18/2018 09:42 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/18/18 03:41, Pete Biggs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Look at: >>>>> >>>>> https://t.co/6fT61xgtGH >>>>> >>>>> Get the latest microcode.dat file from here: >>>>> >>>>> https://t.co/zPwagbeJFY >>>>> >>>>> See how to update the microcode from the links at the bottom of this >>>>> page: >>>>> >>>>> https://t.co/EOgclWdHCw >>>>> >>>>> An before anyone asks .. I have no idea why Red Hat chose this path, >>>>> they did.? It doesn't matter if I (or anyone else) agrees with the >>>>> decision.? It is what it is. >>>>> >>>> **I'm not blaming you.** >>>> >>>> But can I just clarify. We have to *manually* install the microcode >>>> update an EL7 in order to be protected against Spectre? EL6 as well? >>>> >>>> Presumably this is to remove RH from the loop and to stop people >>>> blaming them - i.e. this is between Intel and the customer, it's >>>> nothing to do with them. >>> >>> I bet you are right. I was going to rant about that... then it occurred >>> to me that class action against Intel (didn't hear about AMD though) is >>> quite likely, so, indeed, RedHat does not want to be even mentioned in >>> it, which will be unfair, especially after RedHat putting effort into >>> fixing somebody's else crap. >>> >> >> It isn't about washing hands, lawsuits, or soeoen else's stuff.? It is >> about broken microcode updates. >> >> The code from intel was broken .. causing several CPUs not to boot after >> update.? That (and only that) is why they were pulled. >> >> Users MUST individually QA the microcode for their individual CPUs, OEM >> Frimware, chipset etc. >> >> The issue here is that the microcode broke peoples machines .. therefore >> it had to be rolled back.? All the other discussion is full and total BS. >> >> It is likely ONCE all the microcode updates are tested and completely >> working that Red Hat will again include it in the microcode_ctl RPM .. >> but that can't put stuff in there that is breaking machines. >> >> While things are beuing released as QA quality, they are going to have >> to be done individually by admins .. that's just how it is. >> > > Thanks Johnny, for correcting my wild guess which was wrong, and the > fact that my guess was wrong I realized after reading your other post! > > As with everything else the end user pays one way or another. :-(Here are a couple of posts for our reading pleasure: Intel recommends not installing the microcode now: http://intel.ly/2DsL9qz Linus Torvalds agrees: http://tcrn.ch/2n2mEcA So, wait on those microcode updates for a while. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20180123/b406a09b/attachment-0001.sig>
Chris Murphy
2018-Jan-24 18:06 UTC
[CentOS] /lib/firmware/microcode.dat update on CentOS 6
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:26 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> > Here are a couple of posts for our reading pleasure: > > Intel recommends not installing the microcode now: > http://intel.ly/2DsL9qzExcept this doesn't mention microcode at all. I can't even tell WTF they're recommending not doing in this doc, it's that badly written. You have to infer, by reading two prior docs, that they're referring to microcode. And then you have to assume that's still what they're referring to when they say: "We recommend that OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions." Current versions of what? Microcode? But yes, indeed they appear to have pulled the 20180108 microcode, which was previously set to latest at this link, and it is now reverted to the 20171117 microcode. https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27337/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File?v=t What these means for people who have CPUs which were not crashing (rebooting being a new euphemism for crashing) , but saw variant 2 Spectre mitigation with the 20180108 microcode, will lose full mitigation until Intel gets its ducks into a row. *eye roll*> Linus Torvalds agrees: > http://tcrn.ch/2n2mEcAHis comments aren't about microcode though. And it also looks like he got IBRS and IBPB confused. The better post on this front is https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/22/598 As far as I know, there still is no mitigation for Spectre variant 1. -- Chris Murphy
Leroy Tennison
2018-Jan-24 18:38 UTC
[CentOS] /lib/firmware/microcode.dat update on CentOS 6
What's amazing to me is, after "Intel Inside - don't divide" (their 486 debacle), they didn't learn and have a better plan for addressing these kinds of things. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Murphy" <lists at colorremedies.com> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06:01 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] /lib/firmware/microcode.dat update on CentOS 6 On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:26 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> > Here are a couple of posts for our reading pleasure: > > Intel recommends not installing the microcode now: > http://intel.ly/2DsL9qzExcept this doesn't mention microcode at all. I can't even tell WTF they're recommending not doing in this doc, it's that badly written. You have to infer, by reading two prior docs, that they're referring to microcode. And then you have to assume that's still what they're referring to when they say: "We recommend that OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions." Current versions of what? Microcode? But yes, indeed they appear to have pulled the 20180108 microcode, which was previously set to latest at this link, and it is now reverted to the 20171117 microcode. https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27337/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File?v=t What these means for people who have CPUs which were not crashing (rebooting being a new euphemism for crashing) , but saw variant 2 Spectre mitigation with the 20180108 microcode, will lose full mitigation until Intel gets its ducks into a row. *eye roll*> Linus Torvalds agrees: > http://tcrn.ch/2n2mEcAHis comments aren't about microcode though. And it also looks like he got IBRS and IBPB confused. The better post on this front is https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/22/598 As far as I know, there still is no mitigation for Spectre variant 1. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Once upon a time, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> said:> "We recommend that OEMs, cloud service providers, system > manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of > current versions." Current versions of what? Microcode?Well, that's the only thing Intel provides for CPUs, so that's all it can be.> What these means for people who have CPUs which were not crashing > (rebooting being a new euphemism for crashing) , but saw variant 2 > Spectre mitigation with the 20180108 microcode, will lose full > mitigation until Intel gets its ducks into a row.Lots of people weren't seeing issues, but that's in part because Intel's updated microcode release only actually updated microcode for recent CPUs. I have many servers that aren't crashing, but that's because Intel hasn't actually even tried to fix the microcode for their CPUs yet. -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>