[CentOS] /lib/firmware/microcode.dat update on CentOS 6

[Valeri Galtsev]

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. :-(

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++