Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:30 -0000 (UTC) From: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Response to Meltdown and Spectre Message-ID: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnp7bo6m.2k8.naddy>