4 ms·

"Defective" seems harsh here in that every product will always have issues of this degree no matter how hard one tries to make a perfect product. We're talking

"Defective" seems harsh here in that every product will always have issues of this degree no matter how hard one tries to make a perfect product. We're talking about a very subtle side channel attack. I promise you every computer system today still has some undiscovered side channel vulnerabilities. Meltdown-like vulnerabilities most likely existed since speculative execution was invented, likely decades before researchers discovered it. To my knowledge, Meltdown has never been exploited in the wild. Lawmakers could make chip designers replace all the chips but, 1) that's not very environmental either 2) it would be pretty disastrous for everyone when Intel and AMD go under because they can't actually afford to replace every chip they had in existence at the time 3) assuming this was somehow done in a way they could afford, the costs for these replacements ultimately get passed on to customers. For replacements that were never necessary to begin with. It's just kind of wasteful.

pgeorgi 3y ago
It seems defective and in need of replacement enough that Microsoft decided to not support these products in their operating system that would otherwise be well-enough supported by those chips. Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that Intel and AMD should do something about it, except to sell more stuff." What kind of incentives does that create?
- Drakim 3y ago
  It's the "too big to fail" scenario all over again. Just like with too big to fail companies and banks, only half of the equation is being applied: CPU industry wants to start using risky design techniques to get an edge on the competition? Who are we to tell them no? it's a free market. CPU industry can't afford to replace the defects that came about from their risky choices? They are too big and important to be held accountable.
  - nearbuy 3y ago
    You're going to have to go back to the 1990s if you want to undo the "risky design technique" of speculative execution. You're ignoring half the equation too here. There are benefits to having faster and more efficient computers for the past couple decades that could execute more instructions per clock cycle. These vulnerabilities are subtle, hard to predict, and can take years or decades to discover. Anything that makes computers faster is a risky design technique. If you want safe chips, you'd better say goodbye to caches, multithreading, and hyperthreading as well. You'll be left with a slow, inefficient chip. Non-American companies that aren't forced to take zero risks would take over the market and be miles ahead.
- nearbuy 3y ago
  > Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that Intel and AMD should do something about it, except to sell more stuff." The first part of that isn't right. Microsoft decided it wasn't worth it for them to support 6 year old chips on their new OS. People with older hardware can continue to run Windows 10. The two operating systems are almost the same anyway. Microsoft's decision is not an indicator that you're in much danger from Meltdown.
RobotToaster 3y ago
When the intel FDIV bug happened they were forced to recall the processors. I don't see why this should be any different.
- nearbuy 3y ago
  Intel voluntarily recalled the processors. The cost was about equivalent of $800M today, which is quite large, but nowhere near the cost of replacing every Meltdown-susceptible CPU. The FDIV recall probably didn't have any benefit for the majority of customers who used it.

pgeorgi 3y ago

It seems defective and in need of replacement enough that Microsoft decided to not support these products in their operating system that would otherwise be well-enough supported by those chips. Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that Intel and AMD should do something about it, except to sell more stuff." What kind of incentives does that create?

Drakim 3y ago
It's the "too big to fail" scenario all over again. Just like with too big to fail companies and banks, only half of the equation is being applied: CPU industry wants to start using risky design techniques to get an edge on the competition? Who are we to tell them no? it's a free market. CPU industry can't afford to replace the defects that came about from their risky choices? They are too big and important to be held accountable.
- nearbuy 3y ago
  You're going to have to go back to the 1990s if you want to undo the "risky design technique" of speculative execution. You're ignoring half the equation too here. There are benefits to having faster and more efficient computers for the past couple decades that could execute more instructions per clock cycle. These vulnerabilities are subtle, hard to predict, and can take years or decades to discover. Anything that makes computers faster is a risky design technique. If you want safe chips, you'd better say goodbye to caches, multithreading, and hyperthreading as well. You'll be left with a slow, inefficient chip. Non-American companies that aren't forced to take zero risks would take over the market and be miles ahead.
nearbuy 3y ago
> Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that Intel and AMD should do something about it, except to sell more stuff." The first part of that isn't right. Microsoft decided it wasn't worth it for them to support 6 year old chips on their new OS. People with older hardware can continue to run Windows 10. The two operating systems are almost the same anyway. Microsoft's decision is not an indicator that you're in much danger from Meltdown.

RobotToaster 3y ago

When the intel FDIV bug happened they were forced to recall the processors. I don't see why this should be any different.

nearbuy 3y ago
Intel voluntarily recalled the processors. The cost was about equivalent of $800M today, which is quite large, but nowhere near the cost of replacing every Meltdown-susceptible CPU. The FDIV recall probably didn't have any benefit for the majority of customers who used it.