Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MDS: The Newest Speculative Execution Side-Channel Vulnerability

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by DarkFoss View Post
    I'd bet my trusty FX 8350 would fare well against Sandy/Ivy Bridge these days.
    Sandy Bridge is still significantly faster even with SMT disabled, but we still haven't seen any mitigation for SPOILER at all. that one is expected to have a huge performance impact, so the FX may still win in the end.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by hotaru View Post

      Sandy Bridge is still significantly faster even with SMT disabled, but we still haven't seen any mitigation for SPOILER at all. that one is expected to have a huge performance impact, so the FX may still win in the end.
      Heh I was just having a bit of fun.
      I thought spoiler could only be fixed through hardware so no microcode patches will ever come to previous and current Intel cpus. Unless the next gen Intel Specter hardware mitigations also cover Spoiler to some degree your only protection will come through software changes, ie slowdowns for all (Amd,Arm no clue about Ibm).

      Comment


      • #43
        I have a i7-6700hq laptop and at the moment I've disabled smt (hyperthreading) since it was vulnerable also with the latest archlinux kernel and intel-ucode updates.
        Is someone working on properly mitigate mds and l1tf even when smt is active?

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Xwaang View Post
          Is someone working on properly mitigate mds and l1tf even when smt is active?
          no, no one is working on that. it's not possible to properly mitigate MDS with SMT active.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by hotaru View Post

            no, no one is working on that. it's not possible to properly mitigate MDS with SMT active.
            So if someone with a bugged Intel chip wants to be safe, he/she must disable smt (hyperthreading) until he/she changes its cpu. Is it correct?

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Xwaang View Post

              So if someone with a bugged Intel chip wants to be safe, he/she must disable smt (hyperthreading) until he/she changes its cpu. Is it correct?
              if you want to be completely safe from MDS, yes, that's correct.

              Comment

              Working...
              X