This has been extremely worrying. What's more worrying are the number of 'security researchers' regurgitating Intel's bullshit verbatim. We have yet to fully see the fallout from this.
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptabl
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptable performance problems, to a lesser or a greater extent.
This, in spades. While Theo De Raadt is not my favorite IT personality, the mixing together of the issues (actually 3 of them!) has made it exceedingly hard for someone who isn't familiar with the inner working of modern CPU architectures to get the story straight, and Mr. De Raadt gets kudos for calling them out on it.
The following is what I could infer from what I found online. I'm almost certain a good portion of it is WRONG, and I hope the more knowledgeable part of the/. crowd will help me out by corr
Note that AMD is far from innocent in this respect - just remember how they skilfully downplayed their infamous TLB errata.
I might suspect that their Phenom TLB problem had a connection with not speculating invalid loads but apparently their earlier processors did not suffer from this problem either.
He and Linus are Spot On (Score:5, Insightful)
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptabl
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptable performance problems, to a lesser or a greater extent.
This, in spades. While Theo De Raadt is not my favorite IT personality, the mixing together of the issues (actually 3 of them!) has made it exceedingly hard for someone who isn't familiar with the inner working of modern CPU architectures to get the story straight, and Mr. De Raadt gets kudos for calling them out on it.
The following is what I could infer from what I found online. I'm almost certain a good portion of it is WRONG, and I hope the more knowledgeable part of the /. crowd will help me out by corr
Re:He and Linus are Spot On (Score:2)
Note that AMD is far from innocent in this respect - just remember how they skilfully downplayed their infamous TLB errata.
I might suspect that their Phenom TLB problem had a connection with not speculating invalid loads but apparently their earlier processors did not suffer from this problem either.