3 ms·

The OpenBSD project predicted more was coming after Spectre/Meltdown and disabled SMT by default.

• xoa 8y ago
  Sure, but OpenBSD has a very specific project goal and use cases (which is absolutely as it should be!) and their stance thus makes sense in context. But it doesn't mean their stance is universally applicable either, anymore then best practices for IaaS all apply everywhere. For an alternate feature example: some OpenBSD committers for years have reasonably rejected OpenZFS [1] requests because it was considered to be just plain too big, and in turn presented more threat surface and higher system resource consumption (big issue for embedded/firewall appliance applications) then was desirable for them. All of which is true and makes total sense there. But not for a lot of big servers and end user systems where I think automatic full data consistency/checks/regeneration, easy full replication, trivial cheap atomic snapshots, portability between many OS, and so on, address much more important threats then the extra load or any unknown potential vulns. No need for a monoculture ecosystem here rather then using the right specific tool for the job right? ----- 1: https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD