Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck” • Hacker News Board

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#101

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #53

DougN7 wrote: post #50

Earlier 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.

In that case, probably no processors are “clean” as 100% elimination of all bugs is highly unlikely. Just like a bit of growth hormones slipped into your food supply without your knowledge.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#102

Post by JdeBP » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

manyoso wrote: post #24

Meanwhile I have seen nothing from QNX or Integrity...

If you are looking for something from the microkenel world, there is a statement dealing with Genode OS.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16084617

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#103

Post by krapp » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #100

Is it the right time to call out the fundamental wrongness of Intel(/Apple/Microsoft/etc) outrage narratives? I mean I get it: large corporations (1) don't necessarily have my interests at heart; (2) are not able to perfectly execute (on extremely large and complicated) products and systems. um. This is as radical as taking a stand that the sun sets in the west. I like HN because of the promise that people think just…

>I just wish there was just some corner of the internet where this wasn't the dominant trend and I had hoped it was here on HN

You're not going to find that, because taking the path of least intellectual and emotional resistance is just human nature. There is a positive feedback loop with outrage narratives that feeds people's ego and sense of in-group superiority, where one either feels empowered by agreement, or feels catharsis through disagreement.

The only thing HN has over Reddit in that regard is a culture that puts up the pretense ... sometimes.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#104

Post by JdeBP » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #62

mnw21cam wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the ARM CPUs are not affected. For instance, the Raspberry Pi beards are not affected.

AMD CPUs are not affected by Meltdown, but they are affected still by Spectre.

You are mixing up AMD and ARM.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16080002 .

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#105

Post by cesarb » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

dfox wrote: post #57

jacquesm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

QNX does map it's kernel onto high end of user VM space. Due to how i386 TLB works (ie. no ASID) doing that is essentially required to get reasonable performance, micro kernel or not.

If the kernel has no sensitive state (believable for a microkernel), what matters is whether it maps the physical memory in its kernel space.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#106

Post by jschwartzi » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

dfox wrote: post #57

jacquesm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

QNX does map it's kernel onto high end of user VM space. Due to how i386 TLB works (ie. no ASID) doing that is essentially required to get reasonable performance, micro kernel or not.

What about on ARM?

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#107

Post by theonemind » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #100

Is it the right time to call out the fundamental wrongness of Intel(/Apple/Microsoft/etc) outrage narratives? I mean I get it: large corporations (1) don't necessarily have my interests at heart; (2) are not able to perfectly execute (on extremely large and complicated) products and systems. um. This is as radical as taking a stand that the sun sets in the west. I like HN because of the promise that people think just…

Well, setting aside outrage, this looks like a primary source documenting a real problem for a marginal but sizable open source community (probably several--the *BSDs.)

It didn't really trigger my outrage button, and did inform me of something that had not actually crossed my mind--who got embargo information or not.

So, with a lot on HNers interested in open source, and using open source software, I see value in raising awareness that we should let these vendors know we value this. Some of us are making purchasing decisions at our companies and can steer our dollars toward good corporate citizens.

I find the outrage rather incidental to the post, regardless of even the email list author's intent in that regard.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#108

Post by mwambua » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #100

Is it the right time to call out the fundamental wrongness of Intel(/Apple/Microsoft/etc) outrage narratives? I mean I get it: large corporations (1) don't necessarily have my interests at heart; (2) are not able to perfectly execute (on extremely large and complicated) products and systems. um. This is as radical as taking a stand that the sun sets in the west. I like HN because of the promise that people think just…

While I think the story's title could be more mature, I think that the outrage in the article is justified. Intel didn't notify any of the BSD teams of the vulnerability during and after the embargo period, leaving anyone running a BSD vulnerable for a longer period after the disclosure.

IMO, it's a good thing that this issue gets publicity... if only so that the 'lesser' open source projects don't get ignored in the future.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#109

Post by jccooper » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #96

bonzini wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would have had to delay it for a year or more.

So the decision was, go ahead and release it even though we know it's vulnerable because we'll make more money that way than we would if we took the time to fix it and make it secure? If so, I hope the market punishes that decision mercilessly.

Well, Intel sales are going to drop off a cliff, and might not entirely be made up once a "fixed" version comes out.

Re: Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

#110

Post by Gauc2 » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

forgotpw2018 wrote: post #93

mrweasel wrote: post #43

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.

This is why embargoes are stupid. Unless you're 'blessed' you get screwed. They only exist to give intangible benefits to large corporations at the expense of everyone else. It's the technological version of insider trading

I think this is a valid opinion, but it its a bit circular.

'We don't respect embargoes' -> 'Company only releases to individuals who respect embargoes' -> repeat