Linux 6.6 Unconditionally Enables x86 CPU Microcode Loading Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 6.6 Unconditionally Enables x86 CPU Microcode Loading Support

Among the many changes to land during this first week of the Linux 6.6 cycle were the x86 CPU microcode loader updates that now unconditionally makes that support part of the x86/x86_64 kernel builds...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.6-x86-microcode

[rene]

disappointing for those who want a minimal, non bloated kernel, ... :-/ even for VMs, ..!

[aviallon]

disappointing for those who want a minimal, non bloated kernel, ... :-/ even for VMs, ..!

I agree, VMs do not need micro-code loading, especially microVMs.
Perhaps they forgot to account for that.
It is still time to send a few emails on the mailing list.

[milkylainen]

disappointing for those who want a minimal, non bloated kernel, ... :-/ even for VMs, ..!

I was thinking about embedded products that build a completely non-modular kernel. Ie, no possibility to do modifications in runtime.
Be it firmware, modules or various jit code shenanigans.
They could have made the default y, if they think it should almost always be there. But afaict the option is gone.

I wonder that the "kernel deblobbing" project thinks of this?

[marios]

Let's see, will Linus do the correct thing this time? Will he reject this this stupid patch, giving us a good laugh with an insulting comment in the process?

[MorrisS.]

the main reason for which linux is considered a demented system.

[binarybanana]

Yikes!

[stormcrow]

You Chicken Littles need to learn a little reading comprehension. The pull request explicitly says "bare metal", as in not a virtual machine. As for the "Libre" people, I doubt anyone in the upstream kernel care what that tiny number of absolutists will do. It's all a bit hypocritical and dangerous from a security perspective in my view.

[PublicNuisance]

Can anybody translate this for me ? How exactly would this change the Linux kernal ? Would it mean all closed source microcode would be loaded regardless of whether it's needed by the system ?

You Chicken Littles need to learn a little reading comprehension. The pull request explicitly says "bare metal", as in not a virtual machine. As for the "Libre" people, I doubt anyone in the upstream kernel care what that tiny number of absolutists will do. It's all a bit hypocritical and dangerous from a security perspective in my view.

No more dangerous than allowing closed source code to do who knows what. To each their own. The libre kernel is optional so those who wish to use it can continue to and those that don't want it can continue not losing it. I never understand the hate it gets by people who can just choose to not use it. Having options is rarely a bad thing.

[stiiixy]

You Chicken Littles need to learn a little reading comprehension. The pull request explicitly says "bare metal", as in not a virtual machine. As for the "Libre" people, I doubt anyone in the upstream kernel care what that tiny number of absolutists will do. It's all a bit hypocritical and dangerous from a security perspective in my view.

Make a statement, cherry pick a piece from the statement, and insult everyone whilst purveying your opinion.

I've been 'demented' on linux (I pronounce it lie-nix, so there) since the nineties, and whilst I feel as if this might be a piece of 'news' being misrepresented, it is still certainly a piece that needs THOROUGH investigating and reporting on the concerns it carries.

The security++ bandwagon has its limits also, especially when a lot of people already dont want these blobs (I personally accept them for now, but it is dwindling, and AI is 'getting there').

We quite possibly may well be impacted at a level almost out of reach for the linux majority (ie non-dev, non-maintain, non-compile).

My hackles are up, and they'll go down when they've been suitably redressed with facts and real information. Not your opinion.

I mean no personal offence, but this is at a level where you just don't fuck around.