6 ms·

It's a shame that we seem locked into using Intel or AMD for x64 processors, both of which have secondary, black-box processors. Isn't x64 a standard? Couldn't

It's a shame that we seem locked into using Intel or AMD for x64 processors, both of which have secondary, black-box processors. Isn't x64 a standard? Couldn't another company create their own implementation of it and design their own processors for the paranoid to use?

Fej 10y ago
x86 is an Intel standard; they own the patents. Some of the patents have expired at this point but there's new ones which you would need in order to make a competing x86 processor. x86_64 is an AMD standard, I believe still under patent. Intel and AMD cross-license these patents to each other. As a result, any other company wanting to make x86 processors would have to purchase rights from both companies (assuming they're willing to, which is a big if), which would instantly make their products cost-uncompetitive.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  It's my understanding the only reason they cross-license today is both have big enough patent warchests as to place them in MAD. So it's probably quite unlikely Joe Startup could ever get a license.
unsignedqword 10y ago
There have been rumors (for a while) that VIA is looking to seriously get back in the x64 game. So as far as I'm aware they have yet to attempt anything like Intel ME/AMD PSP.
sspiff 10y ago
AMD64 is, as far as I know, not a standard. Even if it was, being a standard does not mean that it is free, easy and legal for others to implement. Some standard bodies require a patent sharing agreement or licenses being provided for a "reasonable" cost, but what is reasonable is often a topic of discussion. x86_64 also incorporates a 32-bit compatibility, which is copyright protected by Intel and only a handful of licensees exist, with no new licenses having been signed in the past decade or so. I don't think you can implement AMD64 without also acquiring an x86 license from Intel.
yuhong 10y ago
Not easily, one issue is patents. Another issue however with x64 is for example SYSENTER vs SYSCALL. Windows for example has a whitelist of CPU vendors that it will use.
- macns 10y ago
  but the paranoid wouldn't use windows, would they?
valarauca1 10y ago
x64 is copy righted only AMD, Intel, and VIA have the rights. There are also some patent protections. x86 is also copyrighted, but it's expired. Most the parents have expired and it's starting to become more common to 486 and 386's in very cheap embedded controllers.
- SlamminAtWork 10y ago
  x86 hasn't been around long enough for a copyright to expire; the only feasible type of protections to expire would be patents. In the US, copyrights last for 120 years after creation of the work or 95 years after the initial publication, whichever is shorter. (Referenced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...)
  - wtallis 10y ago
    There is copyright for the masks used to fabricate chips, and those only last 10 years: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap9.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap9.html
mindslight 10y ago
IMHO, at this level binary compatibility isn't important. Linux could be easily ported to run on any ISA. The problems are economies of scale and the perfect being the enemy of the good. What is the interest in an expensive custom chip when you still can't trust that it wasn't compromised by the fab?
- effie 10y ago
  I don't think it will ever be possible to prove that given piece of hardware contains no malware. Still, there is demand for transparency and product that comes with manufacturer's warranty that says "malware not included". People believe this could lead to some good results, such as better hardware and lower probability of bugged computer.
- mrswag 10y ago
  It's theoretically possible, provided you have a small trusted circuit. It's an active research area. The basic idea is to use multiple separate, untrusted chips and have them do multiparty computation, coordinated by the small trusted circuit. With testing amplification, you can then set an upper bound on the probability that the chip will run a backdoor.
daxorid 10y ago
POWER8, OpenSparc, and OpenRISC are all still around. Linux kernel compiles for them all. You're only locked in if your personal requirements mandate the smallest lithography process and the highest clock speed.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  > You're only locked in if your personal requirements mandate the smallest lithography process and the highest clock speed. I'm pretty sure POWER still fulfills requirements for "highest clock speed", not x86/x64. That might be based on outdated information, though; I just recall POWER being the first to hit 5GHz CPU clock speeds even in spite of IBM's lithographic processes lagging behind Intel's.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  My personal requirements mandate "a cheap sturdy laptop". Do such things exist for non-X64 architectures? I'm not sure where I would even start to look.
  - nfriedly 10y ago
    There were a few chromebooks that ran on ARM chips. Not sure about sturdy, but they were definitely cheap. (And, you can enable developer mode and then use whatever flavor of Linux you like.) Also, the Microsoft Surface RT tablets were ARM and fairly impressive from a hardware standpoint (sturdy, nice screens, etc.) You should be able to get a used one on Swappa fairly cheep. I know there was some credential leak recently, but I'm not sure if that's gone far enough to make it a useful development machine. (Also, it's a tablet with a kickstand and a detachable keyboard...)
    - happycube 10y ago
      There's still a tranche of early 2015 Rockchip Chromebooks, already with Coreboot on them - and you can even put Libreboot on at least some of them: https://libreboot.org/docs/install/c201.html https://libreboot.org/docs/install/c201.html
  - 10y ago
l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
If a company could build a processor/system that doesn't have this back-box/back door, then the government or governments might prevent them from ever selling it. I believe, at least for the USA, there is the ability to tap into a running computer & view all operations in RAM, if it's not strongly encrypted. This is achieved through those hardware back doors (and physical access). if those black-box chips have remote capabilities, no physical access is required, it's already there on the chip.

Fej 10y ago

x86 is an Intel standard; they own the patents. Some of the patents have expired at this point but there's new ones which you would need in order to make a competing x86 processor. x86_64 is an AMD standard, I believe still under patent. Intel and AMD cross-license these patents to each other. As a result, any other company wanting to make x86 processors would have to purchase rights from both companies (assuming they're willing to, which is a big if), which would instantly make their products cost-uncompetitive.

sliverstorm 10y ago
It's my understanding the only reason they cross-license today is both have big enough patent warchests as to place them in MAD. So it's probably quite unlikely Joe Startup could ever get a license.

unsignedqword 10y ago

There have been rumors (for a while) that VIA is looking to seriously get back in the x64 game. So as far as I'm aware they have yet to attempt anything like Intel ME/AMD PSP.

sspiff 10y ago

AMD64 is, as far as I know, not a standard. Even if it was, being a standard does not mean that it is free, easy and legal for others to implement. Some standard bodies require a patent sharing agreement or licenses being provided for a "reasonable" cost, but what is reasonable is often a topic of discussion. x86_64 also incorporates a 32-bit compatibility, which is copyright protected by Intel and only a handful of licensees exist, with no new licenses having been signed in the past decade or so. I don't think you can implement AMD64 without also acquiring an x86 license from Intel.

yuhong 10y ago

Not easily, one issue is patents. Another issue however with x64 is for example SYSENTER vs SYSCALL. Windows for example has a whitelist of CPU vendors that it will use.

macns 10y ago
but the paranoid wouldn't use windows, would they?

valarauca1 10y ago

x64 is copy righted only AMD, Intel, and VIA have the rights. There are also some patent protections. x86 is also copyrighted, but it's expired. Most the parents have expired and it's starting to become more common to 486 and 386's in very cheap embedded controllers.

SlamminAtWork 10y ago
x86 hasn't been around long enough for a copyright to expire; the only feasible type of protections to expire would be patents. In the US, copyrights last for 120 years after creation of the work or 95 years after the initial publication, whichever is shorter. (Referenced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...)
- wtallis 10y ago
  There is copyright for the masks used to fabricate chips, and those only last 10 years: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap9.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap9.html

mindslight 10y ago

IMHO, at this level binary compatibility isn't important. Linux could be easily ported to run on any ISA. The problems are economies of scale and the perfect being the enemy of the good. What is the interest in an expensive custom chip when you still can't trust that it wasn't compromised by the fab?

effie 10y ago
I don't think it will ever be possible to prove that given piece of hardware contains no malware. Still, there is demand for transparency and product that comes with manufacturer's warranty that says "malware not included". People believe this could lead to some good results, such as better hardware and lower probability of bugged computer.
mrswag 10y ago
It's theoretically possible, provided you have a small trusted circuit. It's an active research area. The basic idea is to use multiple separate, untrusted chips and have them do multiparty computation, coordinated by the small trusted circuit. With testing amplification, you can then set an upper bound on the probability that the chip will run a backdoor.

daxorid 10y ago

POWER8, OpenSparc, and OpenRISC are all still around. Linux kernel compiles for them all. You're only locked in if your personal requirements mandate the smallest lithography process and the highest clock speed.

yellowapple 10y ago
> You're only locked in if your personal requirements mandate the smallest lithography process and the highest clock speed. I'm pretty sure POWER still fulfills requirements for "highest clock speed", not x86/x64. That might be based on outdated information, though; I just recall POWER being the first to hit 5GHz CPU clock speeds even in spite of IBM's lithographic processes lagging behind Intel's.
marssaxman 10y ago
My personal requirements mandate "a cheap sturdy laptop". Do such things exist for non-X64 architectures? I'm not sure where I would even start to look.
- nfriedly 10y ago
  There were a few chromebooks that ran on ARM chips. Not sure about sturdy, but they were definitely cheap. (And, you can enable developer mode and then use whatever flavor of Linux you like.) Also, the Microsoft Surface RT tablets were ARM and fairly impressive from a hardware standpoint (sturdy, nice screens, etc.) You should be able to get a used one on Swappa fairly cheep. I know there was some credential leak recently, but I'm not sure if that's gone far enough to make it a useful development machine. (Also, it's a tablet with a kickstand and a detachable keyboard...)
  - happycube 10y ago
    There's still a tranche of early 2015 Rockchip Chromebooks, already with Coreboot on them - and you can even put Libreboot on at least some of them: https://libreboot.org/docs/install/c201.html https://libreboot.org/docs/install/c201.html
- 10y ago

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

If a company could build a processor/system that doesn't have this back-box/back door, then the government or governments might prevent them from ever selling it. I believe, at least for the USA, there is the ability to tap into a running computer & view all operations in RAM, if it's not strongly encrypted. This is achieved through those hardware back doors (and physical access). if those black-box chips have remote capabilities, no physical access is required, it's already there on the chip.