From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sun Feb 4 05:57:00 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542D6EE935B for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2018 05:57:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com) Received: from sonic302-19.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic302-19.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [87.248.110.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3086EFCE for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2018 05:56:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com) X-YMail-OSG: 5g7QFzIVM1k_BVp0YNHhBDvu44jG_Vve4fgXq2898Kgk.emuZWedIJY54xWUBMM .oV_lLbU_z1emPjngpvmSy2Kk.efCr9jvKXt9jiSy6dl7tk_XHt.zXz8vkbCeqTFyBG1lUEVwA9u v0L0uwg8DtiWjBAvAQGvDEOuCBpl4mXnew6s4xy9KoUs9b4blZie.TqaSRcF00Gff0OlNXm1mZF2 lTjIrBC9FfzAeSMbny_PkDuBN1Nps4mVA.Muio7GW1aRN3Gng8mE_F_i1IiqU9WjklMVA4NBObTN u2QiUCsUMCDTZJfcvoIdiHOC3EEjsIUndRpFirswIGlNRQSZoz5AObRTCKuQJ.RPL8lmYG65Fp9U 4EeBCdS46AfZ7Bks0EZx4EiVV0BO7lczJUyozVPyBiiH3VCB4olJ1ITOMQygS26i9crpWc2wCkqM l2KT_mhFKJ0R.NozBeoLxyd_zpX51QMpM6fcuORbVdsdsGWCITM5.hwKR9ZUAhRBVhTH6Gppo17A vaZOvK3BxdPBx_JSkLKo0SmnKOZEfN3Vf4QrRHnsv0TM6p3f5kA-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic302.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Sun, 4 Feb 2018 05:56:52 +0000 Received: from smtp155.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (EHLO archlinux.localdomain) ([46.228.39.118]) by smtp412.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (JAMES SMTP Server ) with ESMTPA ID 22899e38f53e8bb7301736cb3e804fe9 for ; Sun, 04 Feb 2018 05:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 06:56:48 +0100 From: Ralf Mardorf To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Response to Meltdown and Spectre Message-ID: <20180204065648.1a73ec2a@archlinux.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <53029.108.68.160.114.1517707316.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> References: <23154.11945.856955.523027@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <5A726B60.7040606@gmail.com> <92120E50-19A7-4A44-90DF-505243D77259@kreme.com> <044e62f7-69ca-71fe-34a8-5c5cafc06f08@yahoo.com> <0520dd84-c00c-fbf2-da1c-f6ff4c63739d@yahoo.com> <20180203224612.GA10517@milliways.localdomain> <51178.108.68.160.114.1517699531.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <53029.108.68.160.114.1517707316.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0git24 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-arch-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2018 05:57:00 -0000 On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 19:21:56 -0600 (CST), Valeri Galtsev wrote: >On Sat, February 3, 2018 7:00 pm, Christian Weisgerber wrote: >> On 2018-02-03, "Valeri Galtsev" wrote: >> >>> With all due respect, one person saying, it didn't affect me, >>> doesn't prove it is not disastrous for somebody else. Even if it is >>> one machine out of thousand that is "bricked" for some time, it is >>> a disaster for sysadmin who has that machine as a production >>> server >> >> Of course, but who at all is saying that Intel's microcode updates >> have "bricked" any machines? This appears to be an entirely spurious >> claim, based on nothing other than grievous exaggeration that turns >> "higher system reboots" into "bricked". You guys are talking each >> other into a frenzy of fear over nothing. > >For all production server I run any reboot that is not scheduled by >admins is ultimate disaster, so it is equivalent to "bricked" machine. >That hardware can not be further used as production server, but "mere" >fact or reboot is ultimate disaster itself. > >I bet I am not the only sysadmin with this point of view. That is why I >said production server is by no means comparable to sobody's home >workstation. But I bet many people have the same attitude to their home >workstations as I have to servers I am responsible for. Well, I for one >have the same attitude to all my computers, including laptops, and as a >sysadmin - to all computers of people I support. > >Of course, some people may have different point of view on this, which >does not deprive me of expecting from my hardware to work without >"glitches". > >My apologies for being edgy. These things make me such. > Valeri, consider to run a server for testng purpose based upon an Intel CPU, but don't use Meltdown and Spectre fixes, then try to get unauthorised access via a network, by using the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerability. Please, after doing so, report back.