Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 12:14:18 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> Cc: Freebsd Security <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel hardware bug Message-ID: <20180106201418.GI75576@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <5241.1515183470@segfault.tristatelogic.com> References: <SN1PR0501MB2125B36067CD93A5B95AC74DCE1C0@SN1PR0501MB2125.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5241.1515183470@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote this message on Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 12:17 -0800:
> If the meltdown or spectre (or both) attacks are based on careful analysis
> of timing information, following a memory fault, then why just just introduce
> a very tiny delay, of randomized duration, in the relevant kernel fault handler,
> following each such fault?
Randomization only makes it harder, not impossible to detect the timing
impact. You just need to collect more samples to average out the noise.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180106201418.GI75576>