Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Comments On STIBP & He's Not Happy - STIBP Default Will End Up Changing

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

  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    MOS Technology 6502.

    Oh wait, the jam exploit...



    Who is moderating him?
    Well technically we can build a 6502/6510 without the JAM/KIL/HLT opcode. Myself I would rather go up to MC680x0 so we would have access to a real set of registers and also 32-bit data width. Huge benefit there would be to have access to a proper and beautiful set of opcodes instead of the insanity that is x86. I have a 33Mhz 68030 in the basement that ran like a beast back in the day so I can live with that no problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    It doesn't have to be every boot... asking once ought to be sufficient.
    Then we have to decide when "once" will happen. When you install a kernel with such support for the first time would of course be the natural answer, but then how will the system know when that is the case, perhaps you jumped over one kernel version or compile you own kernels and so on.

    So next who ever asks this question must now have root access to /etc/default/grub/ (distribution specific path) and set some flag that indicates that it already asked the question (it cannot just scan the boot flags since the non-existence of the flag could be both that you answered "yes enable" or that you haven't answered it yet).

    So now what to do if the performance penalty goes away, shouldn't this software somehow handle it and reenable it to increase the security. And so on.

    Yes a lot of stupid ramblings, but the original premise was "how hard can it be" and I would say that it would actually be quite hard and complex if you don't want to be trapped in some odd behaviour. So much simpler to just tell the end user to add "spectre_v2=off nopti" to GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT in /etc/default/grub.

    But "whah, whah I don't want to have to use that hard to use terminal" well then perhaps you also might be precise the kind of user that really needs to have this feature enabled by default.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
    By the way did Linus say that people who care about security disable Hyperthreading anyway? Where are all the trolls who called us idiots when we said that HT is overrated and not a big deal to disable? Where are all the morons who namecalled us and cried that they would lose 50% of performance? They don't seem to comment anymore...
    Yes! -THE- reason I don't post at [H]ardOCP anymore....

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by aufkrawall View Post
    I'm not yet in a phase of life where I can support every project I like monetarily.
    I regularly click some ads though.
    FYI, don't click ads, just letting them display on your screen is enough for Michael to get paid.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Michael and it's me, sir, who made Linus notice the issue. I'm just saying. Despite tons of hatred that I receive here. Luckily I don't care.

    It's kinda sad that when I'm saying something here people disregard me, but if it's Linus then, "Oh, God, he's so right".
    Irrespective of your biases, you did good here. We all thank you. Now we're gonna get sane behavior out of this.

    Also Thanks needs to go to Michael as well, I mean he develops PTS, and it was his time and equipment and tools that highlighted this. I legitimately feel like Michael deserves to get paid for this. His tools and collection of equipment for highlighting performance regressions is amazing.

    Leave a comment:


  • geearf
    replied
    Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post

    Treat people how you want to be treated, it's as simple as that.
    Well I'm not sure about that, I wouldn't want a masochist to believe that way while interacting with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jabberwocky
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    It's not about hate. What I truly despise (and maybe birdie as well) is people spreading nonsense (to put it nicely) and refusing to accept facts, and there's no shortage of them on this forum.
    Treat people how you want to be treated, it's as simple as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • leonmaxx
    replied
    Michael Thanks for article! Just reverted that patch in our kernel source tree.
    birdie Good Job!

    Leave a comment:


  • JoshuaAshton
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    "hostilely" - you mean I call BS what I see BS? Sorry, I can't restrain myself when there is a lot more idiots on the Internet than of reasonable people who actually know something. You see, IRL idiots are at least prudent enough to remain silent - not so much on the internet where absolute most people are hidden behind nicknames. And, also when you're polite, your reasoning will be simply dismissed.

    Opinionated, you mean "knowledgeable"?

    "ironically, attention-seeking" - never thought about that actually. And if I really were, I'd find another avenue. And being notorious among Linux users? WTF, are you even serious? It's like being famous among hobos. Yes, it's a sort of insult but your reply was a pure insult in the first place because it egregiously misrepresented facts.

    Still, fuck off. At least I made Linux notice the issue. You, petty fuckers at Phoronix, may keep on upvoting your insults towards me as much as you want. Most of you bloody suckers haven't done anything for Linux or open source in your entire useless life and you hate everyone with a brain who notices issues with your OS which most people in the world couldn't care less about.


    Well, thank you.
    Thank you for writing in small font that is almost the same colour as the text box. It really makes what you're writing easy and understandable to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • tildearrow
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Why don't you just underclock your CPU to 1 Mhz, and remove all out-of-order execution, that will easily give you a massive security boost. I mean, who cares about performance would surely clock it back on! HA HA HA!
    MOS Technology 6502.

    Oh wait, the jam exploit...

    Originally posted by carewolf View Post
    non-moderated Linus
    Who is moderating him?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X