3 ms·

This line of reasoning will lead to always using insecure systems over secure ones. We lost much larger percentages due sidechannel mitigations. Layout has mor

This line of reasoning will lead to always using insecure systems over secure ones. We lost much larger percentages due sidechannel mitigations. Layout has more effect than -O1 to -03 (Berger et al). Machines have never been faster than they are now, when will they be fast enough to also safe by default?

nicce 3y ago
It is not that simple. Especially in kernel, is the likelihood of bugs so big that we increase the electricity consumption of everyone using Linux by default? Sidechannel mitigations are not valid comparison, since it is protection against known, reproducible issues, not against "maybe there is a serious bug". We should utilize the gains we get in increased computational power instead of wasting everything to inefficient software. Machines are still not efficient enough to use garbage collected languages alone, which do not have the issues these compiler options mitigate. With efficient software, we can reduce the electricity bill and other resources.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  "We should utilize the gains we get in increased computational power instead of wasting everything to inefficient software." And yet, horribly inefficient scripting languages are a thing. To save time of 1 or 2 developers ONCE, at the cost of countless users' compute capacity, again & again for as long as that software is used. As long as that is considered acceptable, your argument holds no water. Current hardware is way, way, waaayy fast enough for 99.999% of uses. Hardened software or not.
  - nicce 3y ago
    > As long as that is considered acceptable, your argument holds no water. It is true that it costs more to hire more skilled developers, and for that reason we suffer. (e.g. Electron). But even if that happens all the time, it does not mean that my point is invalid. If we want to reduce the energy waste, it starts from software as well. > Current hardware is way, way, waaayy fast enough for 99.999% of uses. Hardened software or not. For end-users yes, but not for any cloud computing, servers, et. all where the real computing happens. You can make significant saving in terms of required processors, memory and electricity simply by writing more efficient software. Just one method more to make world greener place.
- MiguelX413 3y ago
  Safety is not the same as inefficiency. What's the point of being fast but wrong?
  - nicce 3y ago
    The point is to focus on making correct code instead of relying into fallback mechanisms. E.g. compare to increased popularity of Rust and what it means in this context.

nicce 3y ago

It is not that simple. Especially in kernel, is the likelihood of bugs so big that we increase the electricity consumption of everyone using Linux by default? Sidechannel mitigations are not valid comparison, since it is protection against known, reproducible issues, not against "maybe there is a serious bug". We should utilize the gains we get in increased computational power instead of wasting everything to inefficient software. Machines are still not efficient enough to use garbage collected languages alone, which do not have the issues these compiler options mitigate. With efficient software, we can reduce the electricity bill and other resources.

RetroTechie 3y ago
"We should utilize the gains we get in increased computational power instead of wasting everything to inefficient software." And yet, horribly inefficient scripting languages are a thing. To save time of 1 or 2 developers ONCE, at the cost of countless users' compute capacity, again & again for as long as that software is used. As long as that is considered acceptable, your argument holds no water. Current hardware is way, way, waaayy fast enough for 99.999% of uses. Hardened software or not.
- nicce 3y ago
  > As long as that is considered acceptable, your argument holds no water. It is true that it costs more to hire more skilled developers, and for that reason we suffer. (e.g. Electron). But even if that happens all the time, it does not mean that my point is invalid. If we want to reduce the energy waste, it starts from software as well. > Current hardware is way, way, waaayy fast enough for 99.999% of uses. Hardened software or not. For end-users yes, but not for any cloud computing, servers, et. all where the real computing happens. You can make significant saving in terms of required processors, memory and electricity simply by writing more efficient software. Just one method more to make world greener place.
MiguelX413 3y ago
Safety is not the same as inefficiency. What's the point of being fast but wrong?
- nicce 3y ago
  The point is to focus on making correct code instead of relying into fallback mechanisms. E.g. compare to increased popularity of Rust and what it means in this context.