[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180208205240.0c53631f@alans-desktop>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:52:40 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: tedheadster <tedheadster@...il.com>
Cc: whiteheadm@....org, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] x86 : i486 reporting to be vulnerable to
Meltdown/Spectre_V1/Spectre_V2
> > Also worth nothing that the difference between the cpu and memory
> > speeds is much lower - so far fewer instructions could be speculatively
> > executed while waiting a cache miss.
But they also have more instructions that take a lot of clocks and are
easier to stall - eg by doing things like opening and mmapping
a framebuffer and then doing a floating point double store to it
misaligned.
Meltdown we can at least reasonably test but spectre is hard.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists