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

News Intel's future silicon may not be Spectre-proof after all

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 25 May 2018.

  1. bit-tech

    bit-tech Supreme Overlord Lover of bit-tech Administrator

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    3,676
    Likes Received:
    138
    Read more
     
  2. Ice Tea

    Ice Tea Minimodder

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    875
    Likes Received:
    54
    Internal Server Error
     
  3. Gareth Halfacree

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

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,066
    Likes Received:
    6,610
    Ooh, that's exciting. @MLyons: SUMMAT'S BROK.
     
  4. Ice Tea

    Ice Tea Minimodder

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    875
    Likes Received:
    54
    It's working now. :)
     
  5. MLyons

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

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2017
    Posts:
    4,174
    Likes Received:
    2,732
    Fixed
    Was related to a restart for GDPR related stuff. All is well again.
     
  6. Ice Tea

    Ice Tea Minimodder

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    875
    Likes Received:
    54
    Thanks. :)
     
  7. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    292
    So maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if Intel's current Virtual Fences fix doesn't work but isn't implemented in any silicon yet, doesn't that give Intel the opportunity to fix the issue before it's baked into any products? Or is Virtual Fences already being added into next gen as-yet-unreleased-but-too-late-to-change silicon?
     
  8. Chicken76

    Chicken76 Minimodder

    Joined:
    10 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    32
    Something is still broken. Look at the lower-left corner of this image for the address the @MLyons link in your post points to. It doesn't do it in the forum though, only in the article page.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. MLyons

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

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2017
    Posts:
    4,174
    Likes Received:
    2,732
    Very odd. When you hover over it in the forums it works exactly as you would expect. I'm a little stumped on that. Make a thread in feedback to prevent cluttering the article up and I'll look into this more.
     
  10. Gareth Halfacree

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

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,066
    Likes Received:
    6,610
    The latter: if they're talking about putting it in chips due later this year, it's way too late to be making changes like that. Best case, you're looking at the generation after - or even the one after that. That's even assuming Intel bothers at all - I mean, even its workaround is going to be optional.
     
  11. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    969
    Given the relatively short time since the attack angle has been discovered variant 5 - 17 (or whatever they end up being called) are inevitable, so regardless of what happens with variant 4 they will have to keep working on securing speculative execution for years to come.
     
  12. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    591
    I'd expect EVERYONE's near-future silicon is vulnerable to SPECTRE class attacks. AMd, IBM, ARM, anyone who utilises Speculative Execution is going to be vulnerable for a few years as the 'easy' applications of SPECTRE to attacks are found, and methods to retain the performance of speculative execution with leakage are found.
    This won't be an easy or quick fix for anyone.
     
  13. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    19,722
    Likes Received:
    5,485
    Well this is all very heartening :(
     
  14. Gareth Halfacree

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

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,066
    Likes Received:
    6,610
    Article updated with confirmation that the in-silicon fix does not extend to Variant 4.

    Intel has confirmed that its in-silicon hardware protection does not extend to Variant 4, and that it will be relying on the microcode mitigation - which, it must be remembered, is disabled by default - on both current-gen and next-gen processors. 'As we shared in our announcement on March 15, those design changes provide protection against Variant 2 and 3,' an Intel spokesperson tells us. 'For Variant 4 – in addition to the browser-based mitigations that are already available -- we’ve added functionality into our microcode called the Speculative Store Bypass Disable (SSBD) bit. This functionality will continue to be utilised on future hardware platforms ensuring customers can stay protected.'
     
  15. jb0

    jb0 Minimodder

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2012
    Posts:
    555
    Likes Received:
    93
    Welp, we had a good run.
    Time to head into the pile of obsolete technology and get the old Sparc workstations, 486 desktops, and Raspberry Pis out. In-order execution is the new word of the day.
     
  16. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    591
    Have AMD announced an ETA for their hardware fixes (though presumably Zen 2 next year would include some mitigation)? We know that SPECTRE Variant 2 has a microcode fix - if any motherboard manufacturers actually roll it out, that is - and are not producing a microcode fix for Variant 4 (and, like Intel, have recommended Memory Disambiguation remain enabled).
     
  17. ModSquid

    ModSquid Multimodder

    Joined:
    16 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    792
    1. I'm still annoyed that it will cost the end user current, non-discounted prices to upgrade and remove a fundamental flaw, or have ten percent performance taken away
    2. I STILL have no idea whether any fixes have been applied to my system as I can't find a single comprehensive list of required patches, dependent on components used

    I think I'd be inclined to just push an overclock further and incur no cash cost, if only I could answer 2 above.
     
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    It's not a list but doesn't InSpectre by GRC tell you if you're all patched up.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page