Linux Founder Linus Torvalds Is Not Happy With Intel Right Now
Linus Torvalds, the designer and organizer of the Linux working framework, isn’t known for keeping down solid suppositions he has about PCs, and he is presently one of the loudest voices reproachful of Intel’s treatment of flawed processors posing a security threat to users uncovered Wednesday that could empower an assailant to take secret data including passwords.
Torvalds, one the world’s best-known software engineers, is still profoundly required on an everyday premise with Linux, a free and open-source working framework he initially created in 1991.
In spite of the fact that a few people utilize Linux as a contrasting option to Windows or macOS, its best uses are in the cloud: The lion’s share of servers and supercomputers run a Linux variation.
Meltdown and the related Specter issue, both uncovered Wednesday, influence essentially every Intel processor — not just the ones that power your workstation, undoubtedly running Windows, yet in addition the chips utilized as a part of Linux servers running the cloud and your most loved sites.
Intel said it was working with the two opponents and accomplices on a fix for the issue. Apparition additionally influences AMD and processors in view of ARM, yet it is harder to execute than Meltdown, which is centred on Intel processors.
Here’s a copy of the email he sent to a Linux group this week;
From Linus Torvalds
Date Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:51:35 -0800
Subject Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Andi Kleen <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is a fix for Variant 2 in
> Any speculative indirect calls in the kernel can be tricked
> to execute any kernel code, which may allow side channel
> attacks that can leak arbitrary kernel data.
Why is this all done without any configuration options?
A *competent* CPU engineer would fix this by making sure speculation doesn’t happen across protection domains. Maybe even a L1 I$ that is keyed by CPL.
I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU’s, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that say that everything works as designed.
.. and that really means that all these mitigation patches should be written with “not all CPU’s are crap” in mind.
Or is Intel basically saying “we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything”?
Because if that’s the case, maybe we should start looking towards the ARM64 people more.
Please talk to management. Because I really see exactly two possibilities:
– Intel never intends to fix anything
– these workarounds should have a way to disable them.
Which of the two is it?