Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OpenBSD developers are mad that Intel didn't inform them, or any of the other BSDs. Only Microsoft and Linux developers where included in the information that was under embargo. I don't think they're upset that Intel made a mistake, not more so that most others anyway.
Don‘t they refuse to honor embargoes? That would be an explanation why they got no information privately.
Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
51–60 of 176 posts
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#52I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
If you are open to arguments, there are many good reasons to take a negative stance towards Intel.
Fun fact: I sent an overview of unknown instructions in compressed text form to a gmail address, and Google rejected it citing potentially malicious content.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my perspective: I've been singing Intel's praises for the last decade as they regularly (for my own tests/usage) beat out AMD in performance, clock for clock if not dollar for dollar. With this recent news, I feel like part of the reason that Intel has been doing so well is that they have been _cheating_.
Is it really cheating? What they are doing is well known and published, with one side effect that didn’t get rolled back (which seems more like a bug). At least that’s what I’ve understood from what I’ve read.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#54I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
they previously broke the KRACK embargo (among others): https://lobste.rs/s/dwzplh/krack_attacks_breaking_wpa2#c_pbh... it's no surprise they're not high up on the list of important people to tell
He told them they could go ahead, he then regretted it but that's not OpenBSD's fault. From https://www.krackattacks.com/#openbsd : > As a compromise, I allowed them to silently patch the vulnerability. Receiving permission to patch is the opposite of breaking an embargo.
> As a compromise, I allowed them to silently patch the vulnerability. In hindsight this was a bad decision, since others might rediscover the vulnerability by inspecting their silent patch. To avoid this problem in the future, OpenBSD will now receive vulnerability notifications closer to the end of an embargo.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really cheating? What they are doing is well known and published, with one side effect that didn’t get rolled back (which seems more like a bug). At least that’s what I’ve understood from what I’ve read.
Implementing a cool optimization that happens to break your processor's security features is cheating, yes, even if you did it unintentionally, like accidentally taking a performance-enhancing drug.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#57Meanwhile I have seen nothing from QNX or Integrity...
I wonder to what extent QNX would be affected. It all depends on whether or not they map their micro kernel into the same address space as the application, for a micro kernel there is absolutely no reason to do that, the only things you might want to re-map are the message buffers and that can be done with some page table trickery.
Due to how i386 TLB works (ie. no ASID) doing that is essentially required to get reasonable performance, micro kernel or not.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#58I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any source on why AMD64 is unaffected? The paper only mentions that they couldn't make their current approach work on AMD, but it doesn't rule out that it could be improved and made work
AMD's microarchitecture does not perform speculative loads that would cause a segfault, according to this AMD engineer: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2
From the Meltdown paper[0] section 6.4 it would seem that out of order execution referencing illegal memory locations still occurs unless of course I'm misunderstanding something.
Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”
#60I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
Now i know it would take a lot for a major company to delay/cancel a release like that, but i think it could be argued that they were dishonest if they knew it would have a performance impact.