Originally posted by jpg44
View Post
GCC 9 Looks Set To Remove Intel MPX Support
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Michael's new article https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...hing-Intel-MPX about kernel dropping MPX support shouldn't be surprising given that compiling with ICC is effort https://software.intel.com/sites/def...whitepaper.pdf
Leave a comment:
-
-
MPX isn't production ready according to that review. The Google AddressSanitizer devs had a similar opinion that their software is production ready unlike the hardware implementation https://github.com/google/sanitizers...tionExtensions . Any news from Intel about the future of MPX or do we speculate from the lack of gcc maintenance that it's deprecated at Intel?
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostBefore getting out the pitchforks, it's worth investigating why this feature is seldom used. Is the performance impact higher compared to software-based protection techniques? It would seem so, and especially on GCC:
Evaluation of Intel Memory Protection Extensions (Intel MPX) from three perspectives: performance, security, and usability
I don't think it's a surprise that not many are willing to use this. MPX does look like a failure in general, not just in GCC.
Yes MPX shows that just because something is implemented in hardware does not mean its that useful.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostBefore getting out the pitchforks, it's worth investigating why this feature is seldom used. Is the performance impact higher compared to software-based protection techniques? It would seem so, and especially on GCC:
Evaluation of Intel Memory Protection Extensions (Intel MPX) from three perspectives: performance, security, and usability
I don't think it's a surprise that not many are willing to use this. MPX does look like a failure in general, not just in GCC.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Before getting out the pitchforks, it's worth investigating why this feature is seldom used. Is the performance impact higher compared to software-based protection techniques? It would seem so, and especially on GCC:
Evaluation of Intel Memory Protection Extensions (Intel MPX) from three perspectives: performance, security, and usability
I don't think it's a surprise that not many are willing to use this. MPX does look like a failure in general, not just in GCC.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by jpg44 View PostThis is one of the dumbest and most outrageous things I've ever heard of.
It shows the flagrant disregard for the safety of the users that they are unwilling to maintain relatively simple and absolutely essential security code that protects users from C/C++ code that is always full of serious vulnerabilities.
this feature is not simple, is not essential and does not protect users. it works only on some cpus and only when you build code with certain toolset and certain parameters.
if it is so important, why cpu vendor does not maintain its shit?
Originally posted by jpg44 View PostWith the enormous number of exploits found in nearly every C and C++ project
Originally posted by jpg44 View Post, removing protections against these errors is beyond stupid. Its severe willful negligence.
How can Linux be considered to be a secure OS when it will not allow users to use hardware features that can make things more secure?
Originally posted by jpg44 View PostAfter all of the uproar over Spectre we are now actually CREATING a security weakness in Linux by not protecting users?
Originally posted by jpg44 View PostEveryone needs to complain loudly to SUSE and Red Hat
Leave a comment:
-
-
Plus. You need to remember, it is in a bad state because no one is using it. Removing unused broken code doesn't take anything away.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: