1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CPU Intel design flaw?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by adidan, 2 Jan 2018.

  1. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    19,803
    Likes Received:
    5,591
  2. Wakka

    Wakka Yo, eat this, ya?

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2017
    Posts:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    673
    5-30% performance hit? Ryzen 2 could actually pass Coffelake IPC it it's near the top of that number... Time to buy some AMD shares?!
     
  3. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    IF that proves to be true, I think I'll be laughing my b*llocks off somewhat :p

    We'll just have to wait and see eh - facts over fiction chaps, the proof is in the pudding and all that...
     
  4. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    15,421
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    This, AMD drivers breaking a load of DX9 ****, yet another macOS/OSX security hole...

    ...tis the day for **** being broken it seems.

    Also, given how long the flaws have been around, 10-ish years for intel.... 15 years [reportedly] for the macOS security hole... i know it's all very complicated, but you'd hope **** like this would get spotted sooner...
     
  5. play_boy_2000

    play_boy_2000 ^It was funny when I was 12

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    1,618
    Likes Received:
    146
    Is this a trillion dollar mistake?

    The skeptic in me also wonders if it's just a ploy to get everyone to upgrade in a languishing CPU market <me>lovingly pats 2500k of nearly 7 years </me>
     
  6. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    15,421
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Meanwhile, at Qualcomm...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    19,803
    Likes Received:
    5,591
    Title amended to have the '?' It was supposed to have.

    Anyway, i'm still trying to get my head around all this (I ain't no IT ninja master). If there is such a fundamental problem how can an update to the OS remedy a hardware flaw and be secure?

    I want to see what comes out in the wash, this just seems too much of a massive fubar to take at face value.

    If true though, my money is on W10 being, coincidentally, the least affected....
     
  8. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,132
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    I'm writing this up this morning, and I can confirm it's genuine: the Linux patch is already in place and marks pretty much any Intel chip as 'insecure.' (It also does the same for AMD chips, which is a result of the severity of the flaw causing the devs to err on the side of caution - there's no evidence AMD parts are affected, and AMD's working on its own patch which will remove the insecure flag.)
    Same way Intel 'fixed' the F00F bug: when you know what triggers the problem, you just have a bit of the OS that says "don't do that."

    Imagine you've got a bike which falls over every time you turn left: you'll soon learn to only turn right. You'll get to your destination eventually, but more slowly than if the bike didn't have the flaw.
     
    MLyons likes this.
  9. yuusou

    yuusou Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    2,878
    Likes Received:
    955
    Whether or not AMD is affected, from what I understood, the remedy to this design flaw changes the fundamental way user space and kernel space communicate, meaning it'll probably be applied for all chips regardless. Or am I wrongsville?
     
  10. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,132
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    From my understanding, the performance-sapping change need only be applied to insecure parts (i.e. everything Intel), and doesn't need to be applied to AMD parts but currently is being applied to AMD parts until AMD gets its own patch saying "don't apply this to us" merged.
     
  11. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    19,803
    Likes Received:
    5,591
    Knew you'd be on the case :)

    I get the premise that you just patch the OS to say "don't do that" but a software update surely could be worked around by some hoodlum with bad intentions? Or am I just exposing my lack of software knowledge which is more than possible :)

    Tell you what, why don't I just read your article when you write it.
     
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Looks like phoronix has done some early performance testing on how the patch effects performance on Linux.

    In light of this security flaw that could see Intel CPUs facing a 5-30% performance hit does anyone think Brian Krzanich selling all the shares he could legal off load rather suspicious?
     
    Last edited: 3 Jan 2018
  13. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,062
    Likes Received:
    970
    Technically it would be trivial to have the patch only apply for specific CPUs (provided the manufacturer is forthcoming with information which ones exactly are affected), however if AMD did not rely on the old way to do things then it won't matter if the patch is applied to all CPUs.

    In other words:
    Road a is 1 mile long but has a landmine hidden somewhere.
    Road b is 1.3 miles long but has no landmine hidden.
    So forcing everyone to take Road b for safety reasons won't slow down anyone who used Road b to start with.
     
  14. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,132
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    Piece is live now, and includes a link to the patch which prevents PTI (the performance-sapping please-don't-hack-my-Intel-chip patch) from being applied to AMD processors.
     
  15. yuusou

    yuusou Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    2,878
    Likes Received:
    955
    That's a very classy if statement. If not AMD then screw you.
     
  16. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    12,857
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    I feel like this is going to push some of our customers, unhappily, to new servers if they're already running theirs on the ragged edge..
     
  17. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    14,973
    Likes Received:
    3,735
    Windows patch is coming soon apparently. Again, won't be Intel specific so AMD need to unpatch the patch. Hoping to see plenty of articles comparing gaming performance etc.
     
  18. meandmymouth

    meandmymouth Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    4,271
    Likes Received:
    316
    This is a huge problem for Intel. All the major cloud providers will be affected by this and customers of theirs will all be closing monitoring performance over the next couple weeks as well as scaling services up.

    I can easily see a class action lawsuit hitting Intel as well. They have more than enough money to deal with it but they will surely lose some significant income, especially as AMD actually has a viable alternative now.
     
  19. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    15,421
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    This 'Patch Tuesday' iirc... or if you're on the preview builds, it's already included.
     
  20. MLyons

    MLyons 70% Dev, 30% Doge. DevDoge. Software Dev @ Corsair Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2017
    Posts:
    4,196
    Likes Received:
    2,781
    From what I've seen so far gaming should be unaffected.
     

Share This Page