> What would have happened if the AMD developer on the LKML hadn't said "AMD chips aren't affected by [one of the bugs]" before the big public post? Why wouldn

> What would have happened if the AMD developer on the LKML hadn't said "AMD chips aren't affected by [one of the bugs]" before the big public post? Why wouldn't they say it that way. It seems he was responding to a (justified) overreaction to mark all x86 chips vulnerable and so he pointed out explicitly that AMD wasn't. Why let his company get dragged down along with Intel unnecessary. So it is not like he jumped out on Twitter and broke "the embargo" with something like "Ha, ha, Intel is so screwed". > the big headlines would have all been about "major class of speculative execution bugs That's what Intel basically said in their PR response. But so far it seems the Intel (and maybe ARM) only bug (Meltdown) is far more serious than the Specter one. So even saying everyone is vulnerable would have been technically correct but a bit unfair toward AMD, wouldn't you say?