Given the class of Spectre and Meltdown attacks rely on someone else having the freedom to execute code on your hardware, shouldn't something like this be opt-in? There's a whole world of servers out that where Spectre is ultimately completely irrelevant in terms of a security threat, but hyperthreading is definitely not irrelevant in terms of performance.
Read reviews of hyperthreaded performance gain. It's somewhere like 0% or 10%, depending on what you're doing. Not a whole lot. Hyper threading is more like a "silicon trick gone wrong".
It's somewhere like 0% or 10%, depending on what you're doing. Not a whole lot.
So what you're saying is that basically all the hype over Spectre is completely overblown and everyone should just run KPTI and stop complaining about 10%?
Evidentally 10% performance is only important if you can blame Intel, not if you have to blame OpenBSD.
Opt-In? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the class of Spectre and Meltdown attacks rely on someone else having the freedom to execute code on your hardware, shouldn't something like this be opt-in? There's a whole world of servers out that where Spectre is ultimately completely irrelevant in terms of a security threat, but hyperthreading is definitely not irrelevant in terms of performance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Read reviews of hyperthreaded performance gain. It's somewhere like 0% or 10%, depending on what you're doing. Not a whole lot. Hyper threading is more like a "silicon trick gone wrong".
Re:Opt-In? (Score:2)
It's somewhere like 0% or 10%, depending on what you're doing. Not a whole lot.
So what you're saying is that basically all the hype over Spectre is completely overblown and everyone should just run KPTI and stop complaining about 10%?
Evidentally 10% performance is only important if you can blame Intel, not if you have to blame OpenBSD.