Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 17:59:19 +0100 From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Response to Meltdown and Spectre Message-ID: <20180203175919.69a5dd44@archlinux.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <slrnp7bo6m.2k8.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <CY1PR01MB12472D916F78A638731ECCE68FFB0@CY1PR01MB1247.prod.exchangelabs.com> <23154.11945.856955.523027@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <5A726B60.7040606@gmail.com> <92120E50-19A7-4A44-90DF-505243D77259@kreme.com> <slrnp7bo6m.2k8.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:30 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote: >On 2018-02-01, "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> wrote: > >> That seems highly unlikely. It will damage the role of Intel in >> the server market fora time, but the trouble is that AMD's behavior >> has been at least as bad as Intel's, if not worse, in regards to >> Meltdown, so there's not a clearly better choice even though the >> AMD chips have less issues. > >AMD's initial response appeared to have been written by a PR person >who simply summarized the vulnerability information from the >Spectre/Meltdown papers and deployed the usual head-in-the-sand >position that there is no vulnerability until an exploit is >demonstrated. > >AMD has always said that their x86 CPUs are not vulnerable to >Meltdown and nobody is contradicting them on this. However, like >everybody else implementing speculative executaion, they are >vulnerable to Spectre variants 1 and 2. The initial response >downplayed this dangerously, but they eventually admitted it. > >The best reaction came from ARM. They provided a COMPLETE list of >all their CPUs that are affected, and they documented another >vulnerability (Meltdown 3a, reading of supervisor registers from >user mode) that had not even been considered in the original research >papers. They are all liars, https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr doesn't list my Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1840. I seriously doubt that it isn't affected. However, using FreeBSD I can't do the work of my domain. Using AMD processors I only made bad experiences for my domain, now with my first Intel CPU, I'm much more troublefree. the domain is real-time pro-audio. Blanket judgement regarding CPU, as well as kernel design are foolish. I didn't test if I need to do it, but I welcom that I could disable page-table isolation for new Linux kernels, since the Meltdown security vulnerability is irrelevand for an audio workstaton. In short, we should take the chance to reconsider the one computer for everything approach. Why not using computers with operating systems and CPUs tailored to their purposes? The one computer for everything attitude implies issues. I'm using a record player to listen to recordings and a washing machine to wash my clothes, they aren't networked. I'm using one and the same computer as a digital audio workstation and to access the Internet for emailing, browsing and updating, but I don't do both at the same time, so different boot options are helpful. For audio work I might buy a new computer with more horse power and more power consumption in the future and use another computer with less horse power and less power consumpton for emailing, browsing and downloading updates. The real issue is to expect the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" (all-in-one device or creature suitable for every purpose), see https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wollmilchsau.jpg , since such monsters are asking for trouble.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180203175919.69a5dd44>