MP51.0087.B00 10.13.5 BootROM update: Missing Microcode...

[LightBulbFun]

Just a heads up guys theres a New BootROM update in 10.13.5

interestingly I was curious if this update contained any new Microcode, strangely the intel microcode tool reported that there where no microcodes in the Firmware file

and indeed after installing the new Firmware OS X is reporting no microcode version as-well (also it installed very quickly much quicker then other firmware updates have)

it seems like Apple REMOVED all microcode from the Mac Pro EFI in 0087...

I wonder why they did this... I wonder if its a bug or something. (note iv not yet installed 10.13.5 it self yet)

[doublepost=1527879871][/doublepost]quick update: it looks like my MBP9,1 which also got a FW update, does have updated microcode for its CPU.

I suspect Apple may of messed with the Mac Pros BootROM? but im not sure how to submit such an issue to apple...

 

[crjackson2134]

I was expecting to see something here, but I got no firmware update that I can tell.

Is there a difference between the installer from the App-Store update, and the full installer you can download?

 

[bsbeamer]

This firmware update (like previous ones) will likely require an EFI GPU to properly install. Will not be installing 10.13.5 until NVIDIA drivers are updated, but guess I'll be pulling out the authentic GTX 680 for Mac for the update...

 

[expede]

I did what you did and look what I found after update:

/Per

Just a heads up guys theres a New BootROM update in 10.13.5

interestingly I was curious if this update contained any new Microcode, strangely the intel microcode tool reported that there where no microcodes in the Firmware file

and indeed after installing the new Firmware OS X is reporting no microcode version as-well (also it installed very quickly much quicker then other firmware updates have)

it seems like Apple REMOVED all microcode from the Mac Pro EFI in 0087...

I wonder why they did this... I wonder if its a bug or something. (note iv not yet installed 10.13.5 it self yet)

View attachment 764015

View attachment 764016
[doublepost=1527879871][/doublepost]quick update: it looks like my MBP9,1 which also got a FW update, does have updated microcode for its CPU.

I suspect Apple may of messed with the Mac Pros BootROM? but im not sure how to submit such an issue to apple...


View attachment 764018

 

[crjackson2134]

This firmware update (like previous ones) will likely require an EFI GPU to properly install. Will not be installing 10.13.5 until NVIDIA drivers are updated, but guess I'll be pulling out the authentic GTX 680 for Mac for the update...

Yeah, I have an EFI GPU...

What I found out is that the App Store update comes in at 2.5GB and no firmware install. It's pretty quick...

Then I downloaded the Full Install from the App Store afterwards, it was 5.80GB... Big Diff...

I ran the full installer... Et Voila! ... Firmware update and a LONG (by comparison) install process.

Now I have the full monty...

Lesson here... Skip the update button from the App Store. Go straight to the download page and get the full installer.

 

[LightBulbFun]

I did what you did and look what I found after update:

/Per

did you install the EFI update or just install 10.13.5 from the App Store update section/Combo updater? because when you update that way it does not update the Mac Pros EFI

to install the update you have to download a fresh 10.13.5 installer App from the app store and launch it where it will ask you to install a firmware update first.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I ran the update from the App Store then I downloaded the full installer and ran the firmware update only (after I installed my Apple GPU). Mine also shows 0 for microcode version (X5675).

 

[jasnw]

OT - this is all good fun! Can someone point me at a link, or links, which provide details of digging around in BootROM and the tools available to do this digging? Preferably tools that will run in macOS (GUI or CLI). I downloaded the EFIgy tool from github and I'm hooked. TIA.

 

[MisterAndrew]

What is the microcode version suppose to be? Have you submitted a report with Feedback Assistant?

 

[LightBulbFun]

I ran the update from the App Store then I downloaded the full installer and ran the firmware update only (after I installed my Apple GPU). Mine also shows 0 for microcode version (X5675).

What is the microcode version suppose to be? Have you submitted a report with Feedback Assistant?

it should show "15" rather then 0 there (if its running the non-patched microcode) if it shows a 0 it means no microcode is loaded.

as for FeedBack assistant, im not running any Betas at the moment so i dont have the App sadly and im not sure if I can use it outside of a beta?

considering this firmware version has no microcode at all I wonder if changes the behaviour of X5687s... cc @tpivette89 (although if what I suspect is stopping the X5687 from booting is true, then Microcode or no Microcode would not change that sadly)

OT - this is all good fun! Can someone point me at a link, or links, which provide details of digging around in BootROM and the tools available to do this digging? Preferably tools that will run in macOS (GUI or CLI). I downloaded the EFIgy tool from github and I'm hooked. TIA.

for checking the microcode version im using intelmicrocodelist.exe its a small windows CLI that checks any file for intel Microcodes and if it finds them it displays some info about the microcodes.

 

[jasnw]

for checking the microcode version im using intelmicrocodelist.exe its a small windows CLI that checks any file for intel Microcodes and if it finds them it displays some info about the microcodes.

Thanks - any native macOS tools that will run in Terminal? Or in Linux for that matter as I have Linux VMs (or a Linux tool might be recrafted to work under Darwin).

 

[h9826790]

Confirmed CPU microcode version is 0 with 0087.B00

 

[tpivette89]

it should show "15" rather then 0 there (if its running the non-patched microcode) if it shows a 0 it means no microcode is loaded.

as for FeedBack assistant, im not running any Betas at the moment so i dont have the App sadly and im not sure if I can use it outside of a beta?

considering this firmware version has no microcode at all I wonder if changes the behaviour of X5687s... cc @tpivette89 (although if what I suspect is stopping the X5687 from booting is true, then Microcode or no Microcode would not change that sadly)



for checking the microcode version im using intelmicrocodelist.exe its a small windows CLI that checks any file for intel Microcodes and if it finds them it displays some info about the microcodes.

I still have that CPU, and can test it in my SP flashed 5,1. However, I have to work tonight, so I won’t be able to do the swap until tomorrow evening.

Also, if I decided to swap it in my 2.26ghz DP 4,1 (also flashed) just to try it in that system, which CPU socket would I need to put it in for it to boot properly... A or B?

 

[LightBulbFun]

I still have that CPU, and can test it in my SP flashed 5,1. However, I have to work tonight, so I won’t be able to do the swap until tomorrow evening.

Also, if I decided to swap it in my 2.26ghz DP 4,1 (also flashed) just to try it in that system, which CPU socket would I need to put it in for it to boot properly... A or B?

IIRC on the MP4,1/5,1 the first CPU is CPU A. but keep in mind the Dual 4,1 uses lidless CPUs.

 

[MIKX]

What's the verdict ?

1. Full installer 5Gb+ with bootROM to MP51.0087.B00 bootROM


2. App Store upgrade no MP51.0087.B00 bootROM upgrade ?

Is it remotely possible that Apple Hi Sierra team has been following our DXE_Injection threads
and has sabotaged the current ability to inject DXE ffs into the '85' ROM?

Three bootROM upgrades in a single Apple OS release .. weird.

My intuition is telling me to go with the App Store 2 Gb + upgrade though I am still currently downloading the full installer - seems prudent. I could always do a full install later when we have more information.

Additionally, it is quite curious that the 10.13.5 Combo doen't require the MP51.0087.B00 bootROM upgrade. What's in that new bootROM that is so special ?

Suggestions please.

EDIT : I might download the 10.13.5 Combo.

 

[Surrat]

My bet is that Apple doesnt give a damn what we are doing here, and the missing microcode is an accident.
The problem is telling the right people that it happened, I'm afraid that Apple's engineers wont catch the mistake at all.

I have updated 2 of my three towers using the combo updater so no empty boot roms.
I will wait on a boot rom update until either we can inject the missing microcode back in manually, or Apple releases a bugfix to take care of it.

 

[crjackson2134]

Aside from Spectre/Meltdown countermeasures, what exactly is THIS microcode needed for?

 

[MIKX]

Yes, my gut feeling is the same. Downloading the Combo now.
It will be interesting to see what is in the new bootROM after Gilles and the others get a look at it.

We need 10.13.6 beta testers to lodge an official bug report to the Apple Hi Sierra team about the MicroCode issue.

EDIT 1: Removed a stupid comment ( sleepy )

EDIT 2 : zozomester just reported that his previously NVMe booting Toshiba M.2 ssd no longer boots after the new bootROM

I wonder if he tried a PRAM reset ? Certainly wouldn't hurt.
Or RE-inject his DXE ffs ito the new bootROM ?

 

[h9826790]

Yes, my gut feeling is the same. Downloading the Combo now.
It will be interesting to see what is in the new bootROM after Gilles and the others get a look at it.

We need 10.13.6 beta testers to lodge an official bug report to the Apple Hi Sierra team about the MicroCode issue.

EDIT 1: Removed a stupid comment ( sleepy )

EDIT 2 : zozomester just reported that his previously NVMe booting Toshiba M.2 ssd no longer boots after the new bootROM

I wonder if he tried a PRAM reset ? Certainly wouldn't hurt.
Or RE-inject his DXE ffs ito the new bootROM ?

I bet re-injection is required after every single firmware update.

 

[zozomester]

I bet re-injection is required after every single firmware update.

Yes,someone could update the DXEinject and nVME.ffs file ....I used the old one.

 

[MIKX]

Yes, but .. . did you re-inject it ? Use the old bootROM ( the same one that mikeboss flashed for you. It's worth a try.

Also, is 10.13.5 showing your M.2 drive in Disk Utility and on the desktop ?

Does your Toshiba M.2 show up in the EFI boot screen ?

I seem to recall that some times a 2nd. restart is needed.

You are now our official 10.13.5 bootNVMe beta tester.

Good Luck

 

[zozomester]

Yes, but .. . did you re-inject it ? Use the old bootROM ( the same one that mikeboss flashed for you. It's worth a try.

Also, is 10.13.5 showing your M.2 drive in Disk Utility and on the desktop ?

Does your Toshiba M.2 show up in the EFI boot screen ?

I seem to recall that some times a 2nd. restart is needed.

You are now our official 10.13.5 bootNVMe beta tester.

Good Luck

What? Can I put back the previous Uefi Boot Rom?
Not see Toshiba SSDs show on boot screen.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I just assumed a firmware update overwrites the old firmware so you’d need to inject it again.

 

[Susurs]

So what is this update for. Safe updating 5,1?

 

[zozomester]

Yes, but .. . did you re-inject it ? Use the old bootROM ( the same one that mikeboss flashed for you. It's worth a try.

Also, is 10.13.5 showing your M.2 drive in Disk Utility and on the desktop ?

Does your Toshiba M.2 show up in the EFI boot screen ?

I seem to recall that some times a 2nd. restart is needed.

You are now our official 10.13.5 bootNVMe beta tester.

Good Luck

I put the previous modified Rom (Mikeboss) back, the same. No NVME boot is only AHCI.