4 ms·

The support list [1] is weird. Gulftown (Core i7) and Westmere-EP (Xeon) are essentially the same chips yet only the latter is patched. The distinction between

by DCKing 9y ago

The support list [1] is weird. Gulftown (Core i7) and Westmere-EP (Xeon) are essentially the same chips yet only the latter is patched. The distinction between Gulftown and Westmere-EP actually was barely ever made until now. And Intel's confusing product line has lasted until today - the Xeon W3690 is apparently Gulftown (the only Xeon) and is not patched [2], yet the Xeon W3670 and W3680 are Westmere-EP and will receive their microcode updates [3]. According to this document, make sure to read your CPU's model numbers carefully. It doesn't reflect well on Intel that the line does not appear to be drawn based on technical capability, but apparently on contractual obligations. Many CPUs in the unsupported list still make very serviceable hardware in 2018. It's a shame a security issue will only add to their obsoletion, or make people using this hardware more vulnerable. Spectre variant 2 is difficult to exploit in practice, but that sounds like some famous last words. [1]: https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/04/microcode-update-guidance.pdf https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/... [2]: On page 8 [3]: On page 16

pasbesoin 9y ago
If Intel doesn't come through consistently across the board, regardless of "contractual obligations", people are going to be looking at Apple's rumored transition away from Intel all the more favorably. And yes, by saying this, in part I'm hoping to put it into people's minds. And, if there's enough of that, into pressure on Intel. P.S. My concern extends to what may happen to coverage if/when succeeding rounds of fixes are needed. In general, we don't appear to be done with this class of problem in extant products. Not that Apple's "the solution". But lack of support will prompt people to consider alternatives.
- Phlarp 9y ago
  Apple designed ARM silicon does not preclude being vulnerable to Spectre (or other hardware level bugs). Both Intel and Apple have large talent pools of excellent silicon and lithography engineers but that hardly makes them immune to bugs, and some bugs will end up being vulnerabilities.
  - Arnavion 9y ago
    The parent's point is not that Apple's chips won't have bugs, but that Apple's chips will have bugfixes.
    - pasbesoin 9y ago
      I don't know to what extent I trust Apple's follow-through. But, purchasers will have more choices. And, Apple's silicon development appears to be top-notch. In addition, the company professes and demonstrates some ongoing concern about security. So, depending on Apple's ongoing hardware developments, Intel may face technical pressures on the security front with respect to processors and SoC. And Intel needs to match its technical developments with demonstrated concern for its users' security and not allowing its products to compromise same. Anyway... I hope the pressure stays on Intel. Going through the current process -- not just with Intel, but with system vendors -- wondering whether my several year old but still quite functional systems will be updated, and when. And right before that, the struggle to know what to do about the ME vulnerabilities. Some people have to be getting kind of tired of this. And now to carry continued tension, waiting for the next shoe to drop. In the phone world, Apple users don't seem to worry as much as Android users with respect to vulnerabilities. Because Apple usually patches them fairly quickly, and Apple also has used its muscle to bypass carriers' horrendously bad update support as witnessed in the Android world. Computer users aren't going to want to worry whether they're going to get a full life out of their computer, or have to stop using it for X months until a problem gets patched. Right now, most of them are pretty oblivious to the current chip problems. These problems start turning into active exploits, and that's going to change. Ok. Ramble over.
      - tracker1 9y ago
        Sorry, your > 3yo Mac Pro has a critical security flaw in our Apple CPU... sucks to be you, buy a new one.
    - ac29 9y ago
      Does Apple have a track record of supporting anything for 10 years? The only chips Intel isn't patching are about that old.
chao- 9y ago
That the W3690 is not the same uarch as the W3670 and W3680 is weird as all hell. Even weirder that it differs from the X5690, to which it is almost identical. Did they start selling the W3690 before the other Xeon W-series SKUs? Saw the headline and my heart sank, but I got a lucky dodge on this. Bought a W3680 because at the time, I couldn't find a W3690 at a reasonable price (from what I could tell they were a top choice for people refreshing their Mac Pros?). Maybe I'll squeeze another 7 years from this X58 machine yet!
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  Sigh, I put a W3690 in an old Mac Pro a couple of years ago, and it's been working nicely. Now time for plan B...
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Just make sure to get a processor that's not Intel. No need to reward them for bad behaviour.
    - ibotty 9y ago
      That's going to be hard without changing the mainboard, which will most likely not make it easy to (continue? to) run MacOS.
      - justinclift 9y ago
        Good point. For me it's not an issue as I barely use OSX any more. But for people wedded to that platform... not much room to move. :/
- DCKing 9y ago
  > That the W3690 is not the same uarch as the W3670 and W3680 is weird as all hell. Well that's the thing - they are the same thing! The difference between Gulftown and Westmere-EP seems to be entirely marketing, but this marketing difference now results in patching difference.

by DCKing 9y ago

pasbesoin 9y ago

If Intel doesn't come through consistently across the board, regardless of "contractual obligations", people are going to be looking at Apple's rumored transition away from Intel all the more favorably. And yes, by saying this, in part I'm hoping to put it into people's minds. And, if there's enough of that, into pressure on Intel. P.S. My concern extends to what may happen to coverage if/when succeeding rounds of fixes are needed. In general, we don't appear to be done with this class of problem in extant products. Not that Apple's "the solution". But lack of support will prompt people to consider alternatives.

Phlarp 9y ago
Apple designed ARM silicon does not preclude being vulnerable to Spectre (or other hardware level bugs). Both Intel and Apple have large talent pools of excellent silicon and lithography engineers but that hardly makes them immune to bugs, and some bugs will end up being vulnerabilities.
- Arnavion 9y ago
  The parent's point is not that Apple's chips won't have bugs, but that Apple's chips will have bugfixes.
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    I don't know to what extent I trust Apple's follow-through. But, purchasers will have more choices. And, Apple's silicon development appears to be top-notch. In addition, the company professes and demonstrates some ongoing concern about security. So, depending on Apple's ongoing hardware developments, Intel may face technical pressures on the security front with respect to processors and SoC. And Intel needs to match its technical developments with demonstrated concern for its users' security and not allowing its products to compromise same. Anyway... I hope the pressure stays on Intel. Going through the current process -- not just with Intel, but with system vendors -- wondering whether my several year old but still quite functional systems will be updated, and when. And right before that, the struggle to know what to do about the ME vulnerabilities. Some people have to be getting kind of tired of this. And now to carry continued tension, waiting for the next shoe to drop. In the phone world, Apple users don't seem to worry as much as Android users with respect to vulnerabilities. Because Apple usually patches them fairly quickly, and Apple also has used its muscle to bypass carriers' horrendously bad update support as witnessed in the Android world. Computer users aren't going to want to worry whether they're going to get a full life out of their computer, or have to stop using it for X months until a problem gets patched. Right now, most of them are pretty oblivious to the current chip problems. These problems start turning into active exploits, and that's going to change. Ok. Ramble over.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      Sorry, your > 3yo Mac Pro has a critical security flaw in our Apple CPU... sucks to be you, buy a new one.
  - ac29 9y ago
    Does Apple have a track record of supporting anything for 10 years? The only chips Intel isn't patching are about that old.

chao- 9y ago

That the W3690 is not the same uarch as the W3670 and W3680 is weird as all hell. Even weirder that it differs from the X5690, to which it is almost identical. Did they start selling the W3690 before the other Xeon W-series SKUs? Saw the headline and my heart sank, but I got a lucky dodge on this. Bought a W3680 because at the time, I couldn't find a W3690 at a reasonable price (from what I could tell they were a top choice for people refreshing their Mac Pros?). Maybe I'll squeeze another 7 years from this X58 machine yet!

blacksmith_tb 9y ago
Sigh, I put a W3690 in an old Mac Pro a couple of years ago, and it's been working nicely. Now time for plan B...
- justinclift 9y ago
  Just make sure to get a processor that's not Intel. No need to reward them for bad behaviour.
  - ibotty 9y ago
    That's going to be hard without changing the mainboard, which will most likely not make it easy to (continue? to) run MacOS.
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Good point. For me it's not an issue as I barely use OSX any more. But for people wedded to that platform... not much room to move. :/
DCKing 9y ago
> That the W3690 is not the same uarch as the W3670 and W3680 is weird as all hell. Well that's the thing - they are the same thing! The difference between Gulftown and Westmere-EP seems to be entirely marketing, but this marketing difference now results in patching difference.