5 ms·
The implication seems to be that other architectures are also soon to have SMT disabled by default. That would definitely hurt POWER, for example.
by classichasclass 8y ago
The implication seems to be that other architectures are also soon to have SMT disabled by default. That would definitely hurt POWER, for example.
- mrpippy 8y agoI think the only other OpenBSD architecture that supports any SMT chips is sparc64 (like the US T1/T2). Unless an actual vulnerability is found, I don't see other OSes following this lead
- aade 8y agoWhy not? It’s arguably a way to make it slightly safer to run on Intel.
- temprature 8y agoAn "actual vulnerability" has been found. It's amazing that even after the lazy FPU fiasco, people think OpenBSD did this on a complete whim.
- mrpippy 8y agoI stand corrected. From the commit message this seemed much more speculative than the FPU vulnerability (where Theo admitted to being tipped off by someone under the embargo), but clearly it's more than just speculation. https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/briefings/schedule/#tlbleed-when-protecting-your-cpu-caches-is-not-enough-10149 https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/briefings/schedule/#tlbleed-w...
- andreiw 8y agoAlso 64-bit Arm...
- joesavage 8y agoAs far as I’m aware SMT in Arm cores is pretty uncommon actually.