Re: early microcode: how to disable at runtime?

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

No, it is worse to rename it and have older kernels behave differently.  Kernel options are basically super obscure to most people anyway.

On September 1, 2014 10:43:22 AM PDT, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 08/31/2014 10:13 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 05:11:26PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes
>Holschuh wrote:
>> >>> Probably more like something more like arch/x86/boot/cmdline.c. 
>Maybe
>> >>> we could even make it sharable.
>> >>
>> >> Looks like that would work, yes.
>> > 
>> > Guys, guys, please relax and check the code first: "dis_ucode_ldr".
>> > 
>> 
>> Yeah.  It is an absolutely horrific option name (something like
>> "noearlyucode" would have been so much nicer; we generally use the
>no-
>> prefix and no underscores) but I should have objected to that one
>much
>> sooner.
>
>It wasn't properly documented, it is obscure as all heck, and early
>microcode updates active by default is a very recent development on
>distros.
>
>You cannot even find "dis_ucode_ldr" being cited by anyone through
>google
>searches.
>
>I believe it is actually possible to fix this still: either by directly
>renaming, or by using a deprecation period and testing for a new name
>and
>the "dis_ucode_ldr" name.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.