3 ms·
I'm a simple guy, I trust the kernel and its devs. If kernel says to me via /sys/ that on this CPU I have to disable SMT if I want to get rid of "Vulnerable" me
by tryauuum 5y ago
I'm a simple guy, I trust the kernel and its devs. If kernel says to me via /sys/ that on this CPU I have to disable SMT if I want to get rid of "Vulnerable" messages, I do so.
Kernel considers recent Intel CPUs not vulnerable even with SMT, it's good enough for me
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoif /sys/kernel/jump_off_a_cliff was 1 would you go ahead and do it?
- ByThyGrace 5y agoWhat if sys/kernel/jump_off_a_cliff returns .9999?
- monopoledance 5y agoUnderneath the cliff will be a water body, but the kernel prepared accordingly.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoIf the kernel developers had collectively decided that it was safer to jump off the cliff then stay, then yes, absolutely. https://xkcd.com/1170/ https://xkcd.com/1170/
- jasonhansel 5y agoActually, that's a common misconception. When "jump_off_a_cliff_ratio" is set to a value other than "-1", then "jump_off_a_cliff" is ignored. The ratio is divided by 20000, so if you set it to 10000 your system will only jump off a cliff if 50% of friends do so. The default setting is "15000", but some distros change it (e.g. Arch sets it to "0" so that your system always jumps first--more performant, but less safe). Conveniently, none of this is documented anywhere, all the other information you can find online is years out of date, and most sysadmins just accept the risk of cliff-jumping rather than trying to tune it manually.