6 ms·

Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

184 points by rnhmjoj 8y ago

Gwaih1r 8y ago
I had a quick Google and couldn't find any published benchmarks yet. Does anyone know of one so far?
- nikeee 8y ago
  According to a German news article [0], Intel published benchmarks themselves [1]. [0]: https://heise.de/-4144515 https://heise.de/-4144515 [1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/l1tf.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...
  - kreetx 8y ago
    Can anyone explain these graphs a bit. I.e the first one shows no impact what-so-ever, but are the benchmark conditions real-life-y enough?
    - Moter8 8y ago
      Well, the first two aren't even interesting at all, because the fix is not needed there and it is disabled. The first two just show, that the fix doesn't make performance worse when disabled. "With non-virtualized operating systems." "For non-virtualized environments or where it can be guaranteed that all virtualized guest operating systems are trusted." --> Aka disabled.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.
    - yvdriess 8y ago
      There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        That's a fair point, though the best solution would be for Intel to commission independent or independently-audited benchmark tests.
      - Skunkleton 8y ago
        Yeah, but what if the microcode killed cinebench performance? Wouldn't that be interesting?
        Joky 8y ago
        The problem is still the context in which cinebench would be ran. There are so many variable on a complex system that "the microcode killed cinebench perf" could very well be an over simplification of "the microcode in conjunction with this particular motherboard and this version of the kernel plus this particular Nvidia driver lead to a bad interaction that affects cinebench performance negatively".
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- opencl 8y ago
  This is all I've seen so far. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-foreshadow-xeon&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for...
  - mort96 8y ago
    While interesting, those benchmarks are only for the kernel mitigations; they don't benchmark the new microcode: > Update: To note, no microcode changes/updates were made to the systems under test for this article, just testing/comparing the kernel patches.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
forkerenok 8y ago
Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt
- tpxl 8y ago
  AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I doubt it's anywhere near that simple. The EU, being a loose confederation of independent countries that had all been doing their own things for a very long time before joining up, has a wildly heterogeneous legal environment. Even in a single country like the US, whether a EULA will be considered enforceable depends heavily on a plethora of factors, including what court the case is being tried in.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    IANAL. This is not legal advice. AFAIK, in Germany a EULA is enforceable. But if you are only presented with the EULA after having bought the product (e.g. if the software came on DVD in a shrink-wrapped box, so you couldn't look at the EULA at the store), you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree to the EULA.
    - stefan_ 8y ago
      EULAs are enforceable, but surprising or unreasonably discriminatory clauses are not. When it comes to contracts with private customers, judges tend to interpret that highly restrictively.
  - mg794613 8y ago
    Eula's are enforceble. However they need to adhere to some standards. For the Dutch for example;general eula aka 'algemene voorwaarden' can not be 'unfair' this is quite ubiquitous, but still you cannot suddenly put 'anything' in there. This specific case would not hold as it is not fair to the customer. (faulty hardware has been supplied and this firmware is nothing but a correction to their shortcoming) I'm sorry that I cannot give a more elaborate explanation of this. IANAL.
moron4hire 8y ago
A lawyer friend of mine one told me that his job was basically to try to see what he could sneak past the opposition's (his sentiment, not mine) lawyers in their contracts. He explained contracts are like a running game of tag for lawyers. "If they don't read it, fuck 'em". He also said that all contracts are mutable. Just strike in red whatever you want, sign it, and send it back. If they don't object (for whatever reason, including not expecting a non-lawyer to do such a thing and never reading your reply), you've won this round of tag. Then mentioning that 9/10 contract disputes get settled out of court meant the law didn't really matter, it's just what you can convince others about.
- teekert 8y ago
  Of course, you want some ground rules but you also don't want to be such an ass of a company that you loose customers/collaborators over petty things. In my company we have a legal department sometimes making contracts that us researchers are ashamed of (we get to use all your samples, any IP is ours when generated during the duration of the contract by the people involved, etc), and then there is our wish to keep collaborating with the other party and keep all of us working happily together now and in the future. These things collide, contracts get ignored.
  - snaky 8y ago
    That's a rules of the game. Every department want to grow its importance in the company, to get more power and resources. Well, sometimes this end up in failing company, but they have no choice - if dep X decide to stop it, other won't - and the company fail anyway, but with dep Y on the top instead, all the difference is who will have more power during some time - then the choice is clear and no department will stop their play.
  - matwood 8y ago
    > our wish to keep collaborating with the other party and keep all of us working happily together now and in the future And typically, this is not when you need a good contract. When the relationship sours, you will be happy the lawyers did their job.
- 8y ago
falcor84 8y ago
Just to save others the two minutes of googling I just went through, apparently the MCU in the title stands for "Microcontroller Unit" (and not "Marvel Cinematic Universe" as per my original thought).
- Maakuth 8y ago
  I think 'microcode update' is what is meant here.
iosDrone 8y ago
Marvel Cinematic Universe?
- majewsky 8y ago
  I would watch the hell out of the Intel MCU. The story line about the Avengers getting in trouble for "speculative destruction" practically writes itself.
bubblethink 8y ago
The bigger news is that they've applied the license to FSP too. Great news for coreboot. https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2018-August/087220.html https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2018-August/087...

184 points by rnhmjoj 8y ago

Gwaih1r 8y ago

I had a quick Google and couldn't find any published benchmarks yet. Does anyone know of one so far?

nikeee 8y ago
According to a German news article [0], Intel published benchmarks themselves [1]. [0]: https://heise.de/-4144515 https://heise.de/-4144515 [1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/l1tf.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...
- kreetx 8y ago
  Can anyone explain these graphs a bit. I.e the first one shows no impact what-so-ever, but are the benchmark conditions real-life-y enough?
  - Moter8 8y ago
    Well, the first two aren't even interesting at all, because the fix is not needed there and it is disabled. The first two just show, that the fix doesn't make performance worse when disabled. "With non-virtualized operating systems." "For non-virtualized environments or where it can be guaranteed that all virtualized guest operating systems are trusted." --> Aka disabled.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Intel's attempt to suppress independent benchmarking suggests that this is not the whole story. This suspicion lingers even though it has removed the clause.
  - yvdriess 8y ago
    There exists other reasons to not allow third-party benchmarking, other than trying to hide something. A common reason is as a way to make sure the benchmark is done in a proper way. I've had the experience myself, and I can imagine that when a system is complex and hard to measure that you don't want an internet journalist running Cinebench to become the reference benchmark for your customers.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      That's a fair point, though the best solution would be for Intel to commission independent or independently-audited benchmark tests.
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      Yeah, but what if the microcode killed cinebench performance? Wouldn't that be interesting?
      - Joky 8y ago
        The problem is still the context in which cinebench would be ran. There are so many variable on a complex system that "the microcode killed cinebench perf" could very well be an over simplification of "the microcode in conjunction with this particular motherboard and this version of the kernel plus this particular Nvidia driver lead to a bad interaction that affects cinebench performance negatively".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
opencl 8y ago
This is all I've seen so far. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-foreshadow-xeon&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for...
- mort96 8y ago
  While interesting, those benchmarks are only for the kernel mitigations; they don't benchmark the new microcode: > Update: To note, no microcode changes/updates were made to the systems under test for this article, just testing/comparing the kernel patches.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

forkerenok 8y ago

Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

tpxl 8y ago
AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I doubt it's anywhere near that simple. The EU, being a loose confederation of independent countries that had all been doing their own things for a very long time before joining up, has a wildly heterogeneous legal environment. Even in a single country like the US, whether a EULA will be considered enforceable depends heavily on a plethora of factors, including what court the case is being tried in.
- majewsky 8y ago
  IANAL. This is not legal advice. AFAIK, in Germany a EULA is enforceable. But if you are only presented with the EULA after having bought the product (e.g. if the software came on DVD in a shrink-wrapped box, so you couldn't look at the EULA at the store), you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree to the EULA.
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    EULAs are enforceable, but surprising or unreasonably discriminatory clauses are not. When it comes to contracts with private customers, judges tend to interpret that highly restrictively.
- mg794613 8y ago
  Eula's are enforceble. However they need to adhere to some standards. For the Dutch for example;general eula aka 'algemene voorwaarden' can not be 'unfair' this is quite ubiquitous, but still you cannot suddenly put 'anything' in there. This specific case would not hold as it is not fair to the customer. (faulty hardware has been supplied and this firmware is nothing but a correction to their shortcoming) I'm sorry that I cannot give a more elaborate explanation of this. IANAL.

moron4hire 8y ago

A lawyer friend of mine one told me that his job was basically to try to see what he could sneak past the opposition's (his sentiment, not mine) lawyers in their contracts. He explained contracts are like a running game of tag for lawyers. "If they don't read it, fuck 'em". He also said that all contracts are mutable. Just strike in red whatever you want, sign it, and send it back. If they don't object (for whatever reason, including not expecting a non-lawyer to do such a thing and never reading your reply), you've won this round of tag. Then mentioning that 9/10 contract disputes get settled out of court meant the law didn't really matter, it's just what you can convince others about.

teekert 8y ago
Of course, you want some ground rules but you also don't want to be such an ass of a company that you loose customers/collaborators over petty things. In my company we have a legal department sometimes making contracts that us researchers are ashamed of (we get to use all your samples, any IP is ours when generated during the duration of the contract by the people involved, etc), and then there is our wish to keep collaborating with the other party and keep all of us working happily together now and in the future. These things collide, contracts get ignored.
- snaky 8y ago
  That's a rules of the game. Every department want to grow its importance in the company, to get more power and resources. Well, sometimes this end up in failing company, but they have no choice - if dep X decide to stop it, other won't - and the company fail anyway, but with dep Y on the top instead, all the difference is who will have more power during some time - then the choice is clear and no department will stop their play.
- matwood 8y ago
  > our wish to keep collaborating with the other party and keep all of us working happily together now and in the future And typically, this is not when you need a good contract. When the relationship sours, you will be happy the lawyers did their job.
8y ago

falcor84 8y ago

Just to save others the two minutes of googling I just went through, apparently the MCU in the title stands for "Microcontroller Unit" (and not "Marvel Cinematic Universe" as per my original thought).

Maakuth 8y ago
I think 'microcode update' is what is meant here.

iosDrone 8y ago

Marvel Cinematic Universe?

majewsky 8y ago
I would watch the hell out of the Intel MCU. The story line about the Avengers getting in trouble for "speculative destruction" practically writes itself.

bubblethink 8y ago

The bigger news is that they've applied the license to FSP too. Great news for coreboot. https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2018-August/087220.html https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2018-August/087...