Patch will slow down Intel CPUs up to 30%

[antic604]

Since DAWs are heavily reliant on CPU, looks like majority of us are screwed:

http://www.techradar.com/news/patch-for ... wn-your-pc

[nordickvr]

Already a thread about this <viewtopic.php?f=4&t=497550>

[antic604]

Already a thread about this <viewtopic.php?f=4&t=497550>

Sorry, I really looked for it - but not in 'everything else'

[jonljacobi]

Well, I never would've seen in in everything else, so thanks!

[CTStump]

Well, I never would've seen in in everything else, so thanks!

Yeah, thanks for posting and I would've never seen it myself, never go further than this subforum.

[pdxindy]

Already a thread about this <viewtopic.php?f=4&t=497550>

that thread is locked

[jonljacobi]

I wonder how much of their performance advantage over the last decade has stemmed from this? Whatever it is.

[Coxy]

I wonder how much of their performance advantage over the last decade has stemmed from this? Whatever it is.

None,

It's a section of memory that should be protected at the hardware instruction level but isn't, by mistake, so needs to be protected, the only way to do that after the hardware design is to cut off that particular node being available for the kernel/system to use. Thus, slowing instructions down (potentially).

[EvilDragon]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6&t=497566

[jonljacobi]

I wonder how much of their performance advantage over the last decade has stemmed from this? Whatever it is.

None,

It's a section of memory that should be protected at the hardware instruction level but isn't, by mistake, so needs to be protected, the only way to do that after the hardware design is to cut off that particular node being available for the kernel/system to use. Thus, slowing instructions down (potentially).

I read the Spectre and Meltdown papers this morning and as I understand it, it's the failure to clear kernel mode address side tables resident in the CPU used by the speculative instruction caching that's the issue with Meltdown. This allows you to grab main memory addresses pointing to the kernel if you know how to create certain CPU conditions. Meltdown is said to be the most dangerous of the two by far as it doesn't require exact knowledge of the software footprint currently running in the machine.

The way Intel handles SIC appears to be the fastest, but because of this, also most vulnerable. I don't know how much of a performance advantage this has given Intel CPUs, but logically it would seem that there should be some.

The writers of the paper were able to implement Spectre with all x86 CPUs, and if I remember correctly, it should be possible with any processor using speculative instructions but Meltdown worked only with Intel. They did however, hypothesize that it might possible to do a Meltdown with AMD, though they were unable to. I think this is why the patch applies to both CPUs, though I think that rather unfair. If it proves impossible, that may be rolled back.

Also, I think they said there's no real cure for Spectre, even in revising the architecture.

It's pretty dense stuff, so read it yourself in case I'm in error.

You can find the papers here.
https://meltdownattack.com/

[lfm]

Feels like it's time to change strategy - not provide everybody with helmets and 1m-thick cotton layer not to hurt themselves.

Should we instead slim down every OS for specific purposes - and not be so general purpose about it?
It's so overall flexibible and you can do anything, with any PC.

When we go online - completely change mode of OS - and not allow as much for the general user.

Or like windows 10 pro - have completely separate sessions going if you want to go online - that is highly restricted in what it can do.

It seems to me Microsoft has not been on top of Windows OS and making a safe OS yet - and forcing constant updates and an ever changing machine like never before.

It feels like OS like Android are more close to what Windows should be - every app you install says it needs access to this and that - do you allow this?
If Yes - then it installs.

Something of that nature but really prohibit install unless certain User account abilities are active.
- You are not authorized to install this

Install something on windows and there is never such questions for reflection at all over what you install.
- don't ever make user hesitate to install anything

And bureaucrats have this requirement on every site to warn about that they use cookies - and you are inclined to click on every site you visit - and you are thereby lost, since a click is all that is needed to be a hidden installer of something on your machine.

We stopped long ago to make our homes unbreakable for burglary, we are set on alarms to get noticed basically - and feels like we continue down that path with OS and making it unbreakable - not realizing it's a lost battle.

There will always be bad guys out there to hurt us.

Thankfully I can just never do an update on my windows 7 - and I will not have this slowdown patch installed. Windows 10 owners not so much - or can you turn update service itself off, maybe?
Or will it stop working then?
- this is not your PC anymore - Microsoft own it....

[tooneba]

Refund?

[jonljacobi]

Refund?

That's their greatest fear. Class action. But it won't be allowed, especially since it will be nearly impossible to prove damages. Not to mention the damage to the economy. They have no idea if anyone has ever exploited it.

And this whole security thing is only a problem because the powers that be insist on being able to "push" stuff onto your PC or device. Without that door, there are few security issues. So marketing types and users seeking convenience have literally cost us all billions upon billions of dollars. Probably trillions at this point.

[aMUSEd]

They should make the fix optional - I am not crippling my Mac just for something that might remotely happen someday - this is just risk averse scaremongering. I'd rather just keep my Mac off the net.

[jonljacobi]

They should make the fix optional - I am not crippling my Mac just for something that might remotely happen someday - this is just risk averse scaremongering. I'd rather just keep my Mac off the net.

If you compile your own kernel, maybe. Otherwise, lawsuit. And personal responsibility isn't in vogue legally these days. You're supposed to be saved from yourself. At least in the U.S.