[solved]Intel microcode necessary?

dice · 2014-10-23 07:57:51

I saw the announcement about intels microcode updating.
I understand it is for some reason necessary to load the updates early in the boot process now. But actually I never had intel-ucode installed.
Therefore my microcode never was updated on boot. Is it necessary to do this now because of the new kernel?

EDIT: What would happen if I don't update the microcode?

Last edited by dice (2014-10-24 08:40:11)

bleach · 2014-10-23 08:13:23

I have it in my boot options with no errors though when I check it via

dmesg | grep microcode

it does not give the early space message so I am not sure my self if it is actually needed for me as well it does give all other info though.

From what I understand it is no longer persistant(via the wiki) so I wonder what you get with the code above.

Last edited by bleach (2014-10-23 08:19:06)

stupidus · 2014-10-23 08:13:26

I actually have the same question. I never had intel-ucode installed. However, when I saw the news, I thought I have to install it now and made the changes to my bootloader. Upon rebooting I got a kernel panic, so I reverted the changes to the bootloader, and everything is working fine again. Is intel-ucode needed? Because if not, I don't think it's worth the hassle to debug that kernel panic, and I would just leave it as it is.

bleach · 2014-10-23 08:22:27

If you are using syslinux I found you need to put initrd after append.

Last edited by bleach (2014-10-23 08:23:40)

jasonwryan · 2014-10-23 08:23:30

There are lists on the wiki page for the CPUs that require the microcode. If yours is there, install the package, update your boot{loader,manager} config and go about your business...

jasonwryan · 2014-10-23 08:24:22

bleach wrote:

If you are using syslinux I found you need to put initrd after append.

Not necessary: the wiki example works as advertised.

bleach · 2014-10-23 08:27:40

Hmm it did not work for me though when I switched them it worked maybe its my setup? I had got thrown into a recovery prompt.

edit:I was wrong I had probably typed somthing in wrong

Last edited by bleach (2014-10-23 08:36:40)

stupidus · 2014-10-23 08:38:06

@jasonwryan: That list just tells you wether the CPU supports microcode updates, not wether it needs it as far as I understood it.

And obviously it worked very well for most people without having intel-ucode installed, so it does not seem to be strictly necessary to install it.

In my case, I probably won't install it, because a preliminary search on google made me think, that this is not compatible with the way grub-legacy handles multiple initrd's.

jasonwryan · 2014-10-23 08:40:48

It does need it. Read the first paragraph on the wiki page again: Intel pushes these updates for a reason...

@bleach: I made the mistake of including a space between the comma and the start of the next initrd line and ended up in the same place

dlh · 2014-10-23 09:54:29

I updated the microcode and didn't change my grub.cfg file and after reboot I have:

> dmesg | grep micro
[    0.106809] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x17
[    0.106814] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x17
[    0.106838] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba

Is that states that microcode was properly applied?

Kooothor · 2014-10-23 10:24:06

@dlh : nope, I had the same thing than you before updating. After, I installed the intel-ucode, added the line to the grub init, and here is what I have now :

$ dmesg|grep microcode
[Oct23 12:18] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x1b, date = 2014-05-29
[  +0.010736] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x1b, date = 2014-05-29
[  +0.010669] CPU2 microcode updated early to revision 0x1b, date = 2014-05-29
[  +0.010653] CPU3 microcode updated early to revision 0x1b, date = 2014-05-29
[  +0.000045] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000006] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000007] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000007] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000007] microcode: CPU4 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000007] microcode: CPU5 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000007] microcode: CPU6 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000006] microcode: CPU7 sig=0x306a9, pf=0x10, revision=0x1b
[  +0.000040] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba

So I guess now it's updated. Although I'm not sure it will change my life, but I guess having the most recent firmware on my CPU is better than having an old one

stupidus · 2014-10-23 11:26:40

I've overcome my paranoia regarding the bootloader and installed syslinux. Now everything is working fine with the microcode update. So I guess you really cannot use grub-legacy anymore.

ratcheer · 2014-10-23 14:14:06

The Wiki article states, "For recent kernels, you need intel-ucode 20140913 or newer." If I run pacman -Ss ucode, I get "extra/intel-ucode 20140624-1". How am I supposed to get the newer version?

Tim

karol · 2014-10-23 14:17:45

Always update your system before installing new software (and keep your mirrorlist up to date) https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sor … =&flagged=

ratcheer · 2014-10-23 14:21:30

karol wrote:

Always update your system before installing new software (and keep your mirrorlist up to date) https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sor … =&flagged=

Thanks, karol. I realized that after I posted, and was looking for a way to delete my post.

I am unable to upgrade at this point because my system is btrfs based and btrfs has serious bugs in kernel 3.17.1. I'll have to wait a while.

Tim

Last edited by ratcheer (2014-10-23 14:23:38)

dlh · 2014-10-23 15:55:35

I patched my grub.cfg file:

--- /boot/grub/grub.cfg 2014-10-23 17:53:53.400283497 +0200
+++ /boot/grub/grub.cfg.bak     2014-10-23 17:53:48.284260123 +0200
@@ -105,6 +105,7 @@
          search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 64818bcc-9991-40c1-a837-516792922139
        fi
        echo    'Wczytywanie systemu Linux custom...'
+       initrd  /boot/intel-ucode.img
        linux   /boot/vmlinuz-custom root=/dev/sdb1 rw  quiet elevator=noop
 }

and when booting I have:

Loading system Linux custom
alloc magic is broken at 0xddd26df0: 0
Aborted. Press any key to exit

Anu clues?

lucke · 2014-10-23 15:59:29

What if you put the initrd line after the kernel line?

dejavu · 2014-10-23 16:04:02

Does anyone know if it also survives suspend to ram. Here is my output:

$ dmesg | grep microcode
[    0.000000] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x60f, date = 2010-09-29
[    0.006666] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x60f, date = 2010-09-29
[    0.780684] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x10676, pf=0x80, revision=0x60f
[    0.780700] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x10676, pf=0x80, revision=0x60f
[    0.780822] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
[   85.309709] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x60f, date = 2010-09-29
[  114.982686] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x60f, date = 2010-09-29
[ 1448.889502] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x60f, date = 2010-09-29

ampe0 · 2014-10-23 21:15:08

So, how should I append this to my syslinux.cfg file?

LABEL arch
    MENU LABEL Arch Linux
    LINUX ../vmlinuz-linux
    APPEND root=/dev/sdc1 rw
    INITRD ../initramfs-linux.img

LABEL archfallback
    MENU LABEL Arch Linux Fallback
    LINUX ../vmlinuz-linux
    APPEND root=/dev/sdc1 rw
    INITRD ../initramfs-linux-fallback.img

I see the initrd line but how should I apply the other intel-ucode.img file? From reading the syslinux wiki I'm assuming (there are no examples) like so:

INITRD ../intel-ucode.img, /initramfs-linux.img
INITRD ../intel-ucode.img, /initramfs-linux-fallback.img

but can someone please confirm or correct this before I have to reboot. Thanks.

mcloaked · 2014-10-23 21:21:59

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/microcode#Syslinux

ampe0 · 2014-10-23 21:28:00

Wow, my bad. I should have continued reading instead of heading straight to google, thanks.

dice · 2014-10-24 08:39:57

Okay I guess I'll mark this solved

secretrice · 2014-10-24 09:01:03

@dice - please, hold your horses for a one more question :-) - about @dejavu post.
There are some dates: 2010-09-29 - which, I think, are in conflict with idea of new upgrade for intel CPU via intel-ucode package (older date), but other text indicates that microcode was upgraded correctly. What does it mean in this case? Is microcode upgraded succesfully or not?

Thank you in advance, and I'm sorry for refreshing solved subject.

dlh · 2014-10-24 12:40:52

lucke wrote:

What if you put the initrd line after the kernel line?

Now it's working fine, thanks

[    0.000000] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03
[    0.049089] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03
[    0.108206] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c
[    0.108211] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c
[    0.108234] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba

forumache · 2014-10-24 18:57:21

Ha, ha, for someone who likes puzzles:

I have an Atom 330 processor (dual-core with hyperthreading), so it appears as 4 CPUs.

With the new intel-ucode.img in syslinux.cfg, this is what I get:

[    0.000000] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x219, date = 2009-04-10
[    0.556420] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x106c2, pf=0x8, revision=0x219
[    0.556453] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x106c2, pf=0x8, revision=0x213
[    0.556481] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x106c2, pf=0x8, revision=0x219
[    0.556510] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x106c2, pf=0x8, revision=0x213
[    0.556808] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba

So yeah, it applied the microcode (early) to just one core.
You can see above that CPU0 and CPU2 (same core) are 0x219, the other core (CPU1,CPU3) remained at 0x213.

Nice, isn't it?

Arch Linux

#1 2014-10-23 07:57:51

[solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#2 2014-10-23 08:13:23

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#3 2014-10-23 08:13:26

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#4 2014-10-23 08:22:27

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#5 2014-10-23 08:23:30

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#6 2014-10-23 08:24:22

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#7 2014-10-23 08:27:40

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#8 2014-10-23 08:38:06

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#9 2014-10-23 08:40:48

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#10 2014-10-23 09:54:29

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#11 2014-10-23 10:24:06

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#12 2014-10-23 11:26:40

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#13 2014-10-23 14:14:06

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#14 2014-10-23 14:17:45

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#15 2014-10-23 14:21:30

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#16 2014-10-23 15:55:35

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#17 2014-10-23 15:59:29

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#18 2014-10-23 16:04:02

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#19 2014-10-23 21:15:08

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#20 2014-10-23 21:21:59

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#21 2014-10-23 21:28:00

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#22 2014-10-24 08:39:57

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#23 2014-10-24 09:01:03

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#24 2014-10-24 12:40:52

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

#25 2014-10-24 18:57:21

Re: [solved]Intel microcode necessary?

Board footer