> I was mainly concerned with this being a new issue, and curious if
> Microsoft was calling an O/S bug a "microcode fix," given that the
> average Windows user doesn't know microcode from nanotech anyway. The
> non-answer from Arjan didn't answer either, and started by calling the
> report FUD, implying that Slashdot was wrong (not about this), and
> issuing so little answer and so much obfuscation that I thought he might
> be running for President. ;-)
Well you can read the Intel documentation if you want the whole story.
You can hardly expect a full introduction in the basics and then
subtle issues of TLB flushing in a quick email. You asked about opinions
and summaries and those you got.
> I'd like the microcode update,
It's called the "placebo effect" in the literature I believe.
> some people elsewhere speculate that user
> level code could effect reliability if not security.
speculate is the key word.
> I worry that an old
> 2.4 kernel would be an issue, even in kvm, if that were the case.
TLB flushing in virtualization works completely different. I doubt
it would be affected.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
