11–20 of 702 posts
I must say that I'm really happy that Linux is taking a stance on this one. He doesn't care what the legal consequences to Intel are, he is pushing for a proper technical solution damned be the consequences.
So, it means more delays in upstream patches.
I think we should count ourselves lucky we have someone so good at spotting bullsh*t like this - and isn’t afraid to call it out as they sees it. Intel & friends have absolutely disgusted me lately, it could be all to easy to settle for less based on their standards, but let’s not let them set the standard - they’ve shown they can’t be trusted with quality and when they fail - they can’t be trusted to be transparent…
So are we going to unmerge this, and force Intel to fix this properly in microcode?
Retpolines for Spectre, and PTI for Meltdown, are still in the kernel. Linus doesn't have too much disagreement with them. It's the IBRS / IBPB code for Intel's CPUs that Linus has a problem with.
Also, not everything can be mitigated in microcode, for many reasons, not all of which I understand myself. Sometimes, only a fundamental hardware-redesign can fix the issues proper.
So, it means more delays in upstream patches.
IBRS and IBPB patches are what will be delayed and maybe never merged. Linus reckons that the Retpoline code will be quite sufficient.
Run through the Linus drama filter, the only thing I get from this is "Linus doesn't like the Meltdown/Spectre patches'; Linus having issues with a patch is, well, not particularly newsworthy. Is there something more significant here than a bad first go at this?
I interpreted it as: Intel isn't going to fix Specter in HW (as opposed to Meltdown) Instead, they do some crazy crazy black magic in the patches.
Seems like Intel just wants to half-arse a solution.
I think we should count ourselves lucky we have someone so good at spotting bullsh*t like this - and isn’t afraid to call it out as they sees it. Intel & friends have absolutely disgusted me lately, it could be all to easy to settle for less based on their standards, but let’s not let them set the standard - they’ve shown they can’t be trusted with quality and when they fail - they can’t be trusted to be transparent…
Intel transformed from a technology company to a management company. That somewhat explains their highly unreasonable behavior.
*[1] Correction, I thought (as does Google) that he still worked at Intel, but it was pointed out that he now works at Amazon UK.
In case it’s unclear to anyone, David Woodhouse (the person Linus is replying to / previous poster) works for Amazon and previously Intel[1] aka @dwmw2 on Twitter, ironically his twitter profile is: “Kernel hacker. Known to occasionally promote an attitude of violence towards complete morons.” *[1] Correction, I thought (as does Google) that he still worked at Intel, but it was pointed out that he now works at Amazon…