|
|
|
![]() |
|
Strumenti |
![]() |
#1 |
www.hwupgrade.it
Iscritto dal: Jul 2001
Messaggi: 75173
|
Link alla notizia: https://www.hwupgrade.it/news/sicure...tch_73713.html
Intel ha dichiarato di aver scoperto le cause che provocano i riavvii anomali su architetture Broadwell e Haswell, e ha suggerito a partner e utenti di fermare la distribuzione delle patch in attesa di un nuovo aggiornamento Click sul link per visualizzare la notizia. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Feb 2003
Città: Mo<->Bo
Messaggi: 44469
|
Ma che patch ?
Io per i miei sistemi, ivy/haswell/apollo, non ho trovato ancora nulla ! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Dec 2005
Messaggi: 2723
|
Linus T declares Intel fix COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE
Quote:
Ultima modifica di nitro89 : 23-01-2018 alle 12:43. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jul 2007
Città: Agliana (PT)
Messaggi: 561
|
La patch in questione è l'aggiornamento del microcodice che dovrebbe essere distribuito come aggiornamento del BIOS
__________________
The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose.... The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of time. But it was a beginning. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Dec 2004
Città: IV Reich
Messaggi: 18593
|
non so se ho le patch installate ma comunque per ora non mi hanno rubato nulla
![]()
__________________
Wind3 4G CA |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Bannato
Iscritto dal: Jun 2016
Messaggi: 992
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Feb 2003
Città: Mo<->Bo
Messaggi: 44469
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Dec 2011
Messaggi: 2913
|
Dell'opinione di Linus ne parla anche il giornale concorrente, spero esca anche su HWUp questa news in modo da avere anche la replica ai comunicati stampa Intel.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jan 2007
Messaggi: 6010
|
Quote:
(Linus Torvalds che risponde ad uno sviluppatore Intel) Quote:
"gestire politicamente" il problema (evitare class actions, dare una bella spinta al rinnovo dell'hardware prendendo al balzo l'opportunità creatasi con meltdown/spectre ed al tempo stesso "far vedere che fa qualcosa") piuttosto che concentrarsi per prima cosa sul rilasciare soluzioni tecniche decenti. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Dec 2005
Messaggi: 2723
|
Quote:
Proper way to fix an hardware bug like this, is that newer cpu gets protected by default, and they answer they are when queried. So you can ask the CPU "what's your status on bug X" and the cpu answers "i'm good, you don't need to do anything" (newer fixed chips), or "i know about it but was already built, and need microcode update/special behavior to protect myself" (current chips with microcode update), "no answer / I'm not good" (old chips without update). So new stuff is protected, and you add more protection (and slowdowns, and special stuff) for older chips that don't know how to deal with it. What Intel is trying to do here, is to go the other way: the chips, even the new ones, will stay vulnerable by default, and when queried they say "I have a fix but I don't use it, you can enable it by asking !" and the kernel is supposed to enable it. It's terrible for a lot of reasons, like "boot an older os and it's vulnerable since it doesn't know to call this", "additional code to enable this feature has to run for all of eternity for new chips now, instead of having to run for older chips and being phased out over time", etc ... The reason why Intel does that seems obvious: by default the chip does not lose speed since the fix is not enabled, and so instead of "intel chips lose 30% speed over night because of a flaw" it becomes "intel adds a special security mode that protects you even more for critical applications, at the cost of some speed". Purely marketing speech and decision at the cost of proper engineering decisions, and they need and try to get OSes like Linux to play along. That's what he means by "[it] shows intel had no intention of fixing those flaws". Additionally there seems to be a second issue in that the quality and behavior of the patches they submitted are trying to hide this deceptively simple but technically terrible behavior by making it look/sound obtuse and complicated. In other words, intel is using its presence and weight to try and push a shitty solution, but one that is better for them marketing wise. Linus is flabbergasted to be treated like an idiot or a obedient drone that should apply such obvious abusive patches. ed ancora: He's complaining about their "fix" being terrible, but isn't fully against using it the end since as you said, that's all there is going to be to have the chips work properly. The reason he refuses those current patches and directly call it a lie/deception is because of what my last two paragraphs related; if you read his message (where the link points to) it's about half way: Intel tries to disguise it by doing it in a convoluted way. Basically they try to avoid making it obvious when looking at the code, because they don't want a "if (intel_chip) enable_fix_because_default_is_broken_on_intel();" and instead pushes something that looks like the kernel needs to do lots of complex stuff [aka, "it's complex, and a fix-on-chip is not enough the kernel needs protection anyway !", and that means a terrible patch with lots of garbage and filler code. Intel's intention is clear in that they specifically pushes this in the same patchset as the "tell the chip to be secure", trying to mush the two things together to make it looks like it's all the same thing, whereas in reality it should be two patchset: one to enable the security mode, and bad for intel marketing wise. And a second one to add those "fixes" to the kernel, that would be refused because terrible and in part unecessary since retpoline already protects it. What Linus is saying is "sure I need the first change, but since you're intent on pushing them together I'm refusing them, because the second one is pure garbage, and you mix them together to hide the first". Eg quotes from said mail to show it's indeed his problem: > So instead they try to push the garbage down to us. And they are doing it entirely wrong, even from a technical standpoint. and > The patches do things like add the garbage MSR writes to the kernel entry/exit points. That's insane. That says "we're trying to protect the kernel". We already have retpoline there, with less overhead. (what he means here is that they try in their patch to make it look like the kernel needs a special protection, while it already has it through retpoline) and > So somebody isn't telling the truth here. Somebody is pushing complete garbage for unclear reasons. Sorry for having to point that out. If this was about flushing the BTB at actual context switches between different users, I'd believe you. But that's not at all what the patches do. (eg "why are you pushing all this crap around to hide what's really happening/need to be executed") Fonte: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16202205 Voglio sottolineare come le mie citazioni vogliano rafforzare la news con problemi che stanno accadendo sullo sviluppo del kernel linux. Intel sta affrontando la cosa in maniera pessima
__________________
![]() ![]() Ultima modifica di nitro89 : 23-01-2018 alle 13:18. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jan 2007
Messaggi: 6010
|
Altre informazioni interessanti sempre dalla discussione nella mailing list del kernel Linux:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...1.2/05282.html Quote:
![]() In altre parole uno dei motivi per le patch strane è che hanno attivato per tutte le cpu un fix che serviva solo sulle cpu Skylake (a causa di come in casi particolari gestiscono i ret). Quindi da un lato Intel dichiara che in futuro produrrà cpu che "attiveranno le protezioni anti-meltdown/spectre" solo se espressamente attivate dal S.O. e dall'altro rilascia patch che attivano indiscriminatamente protezioni "inutili" su molte cpu. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jan 2003
Messaggi: 3107
|
Sempre meglio insomma
![]()
__________________
"E' una bella prigione,il mondo" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jun 2005
Messaggi: 3553
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Bannato
Iscritto dal: Sep 2010
Città: Messina
Messaggi: 18789
|
Insomma, quando lo mettono sto link per prendere l'8700k?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Apr 2011
Città: Funky Town
Messaggi: 3393
|
Ma com'è che Microsoft non comunica che Intel ha inviato documentazioni errate (incomplete) dei suoi chipsets ...?
Forse perchè sono 'culo e camicia' da sempre....? IMHO la class action sarebbe da fare contro >MS?
__________________
......... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Apr 2005
Messaggi: 6848
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Ἀξύνετοι ἀκούσαντες κωφοῖσιν ἐοίκασι ̇φάτις αὐτοῖσιν μαθτυρεῖ παρεόντας ἀπεῖναι. Ὕες γοῦν βορβόρῳ ἥδονται μᾶλλον ἢ καθαρῷ ὕδατι. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Bannato
Iscritto dal: Aug 2016
Città: Rimini
Messaggi: 1490
|
Quote:
![]() Microsoft avrà tante colpe ma fargli una class action per cose che non produce siamo al delirio, veramente.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Mar 2006
Città: Rimini
Messaggi: 3336
|
Quote:
bugs will be bugs ![]() e se hai la cpu "vecchia", sei un barbone e devi dimostrare a te stesso che puoi farcela, comprandone una nuova
__________________
Fisso: i7-2700k 16GB amd7770ghz Antec 420W Portatile: Asus eeePc 901 black Canon 20D NAS Synology 108j Ottimi affari con: skullboy, Dominioincontrastato, hard_one, Torpedo, SSLazio83, OIBAF, Celly, nemozx, jobe, Holy_knight, frank_durelli, ragingbull42, Enky, Truzzone, Lelez, elmanna, Keim, IroNLieR, firestorm90 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Jun 2005
Messaggi: 3553
|
Quote:
![]() Battute cretine a parte.. da 'sto casino non si vede proprio l'uscita.. Cioè.. se 'sto macello inconsulto che aggiunge nuovi guai ai vecchi è il meglio che son riusciti a fare.... siam messi piuttosto male. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Senior Member
Iscritto dal: Apr 2011
Città: Funky Town
Messaggi: 3393
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
......... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Strumenti | |
|
|
Tutti gli orari sono GMT +1. Ora sono le: 12:06.