Slashdot Mirror


Linus Torvalds Says Intel Needs To Admit It Has Issues With CPUs (itwire.com)

troublemaker_23 shares an article from ITWire: Linux creator Linus Torvalds has had some harsh words for Intel in the course of a discussion about patches for two bugs that were found to affect most of the company's processors... Torvalds was clearly unimpressed by Intel's bid to play down the crisis through its media statements, saying: "I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPUs, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that say that everything works as designed... Or is Intel basically saying 'we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything'?" he asked. "Because if that's the case, maybe we should start looking towards the ARM64 people more."
Elsewhere Linus told ZDNet that "there's no one number" for the performance drop users will experience after patches. "It will depend on your hardware and on your load. I think 5 percent for a load with a noticeable kernel component (e.g. a database) is roughly in the right ballpark. But if you do micro-benchmarks that really try to stress it, you might see double-digit performance degradation. A number of loads will spend almost all their time in user space, and not see much of an impact at all."

3 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Look to arm64 by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Informative

    His point is more likely the fact that ARM didn't do any sort of PR-bullshit and instead produced a very, very in-depth whitepaper, example-code and whatnot on the whole thing. Their behaviour here is pretty much everything one would hope for in a case like this.

  2. Don't like Linus; Agree with Linus; CEO s/b fired. by CraigCruden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ARM (and AMD) may be susceptible to the lesser of the two [evil] exploits... but the impact for that second one is considerably less than Meltdown (which is specific to Intel only). ARM has been very open and detailed with regards to the impact -- and gives every indication it is taking the issue seriously.

    Intel on the other hand issued a totally bizarre PR spin. Trying to spin it as works as designed (which might be the case, but the design was flawed), trying to distract the public by using 'Look over there...' deflection technique. Then indicating that the earliest architectural change will be later this year (which by the way coincides with the beginning of the next generation release). Processors for one generation of chips tends to be phased in over a two year period - does this mean that they plan to continue selling defective CPUs for the next 2 and a half years?

    On top of that the news that the [probably legal] sale share (after the news of the defect, but before it was made public) -- is at least optically horrible. An ethical CEO would have delayed the planned share sale until after the defect was public - and accepted the risk of holding onto the shares during that time. Not to mention selling 889,700 shares and keeping only the absolute minimum to remain CEO ... 250,000 all at one time.... is also optically bad. I understand the need to diversify your investments, but he should only be selling at most 25% of his shares on an annual basis.

    This all put together indicates to me that the current CEO should be fired.

  3. Re:Zhaoxin by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chinese companies just put in backdoors for the Chinese government, organised crime, your Chinese competitors and so on.

    https://thehackernews.com/2015...

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/f...

    http://www.securityweek.com/ap...

    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    https://tvnewswatch.blogspot.c...

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;