OpenBSD's De Raadt Pans 'Incredibly Bad' Disclsoure of Intel CPU Bug (itwire.com)

troublemaker_23 quotes ITWire: Disclosure of the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities, which affect mainly Intel CPUs, was handled "in an incredibly bad way" by both Intel and Google, the leader of the OpenBSD project Theo de Raadt claims. "Only Tier-1 companies received advance information, and that is not responsible disclosure -- it is selective disclosure," De Raadt told iTWire in response to queries. "Everyone below Tier-1 has just gotten screwed."
In the interview de Raadt also faults intel for moving too fast in an attempt to beat their competition. "There are papers about the risky side-effects of speculative loads -- people knew... Intel engineers attended the same conferences as other company engineers, and read the same papers about performance enhancing strategies -- so it is hard to believe they ignored the risky aspects. I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk."

He points out this will make it more difficult to develop kernel software, since "Suddenly the trickiest parts of a kernel need to do backflips to cope with problems deep in the micro-architecture." And he also complains that Intel "has been exceedingly clever to mix Meltdown (speculative loads) with a separate issue (Spectre). This is pulling the wool over the public's eyes..."

"It is a scandal, and I want repaired processors for free."

Comments

Re:"I want repaired processors for free"

[TheDarkMaster]

Replaced/repaired, not free. Having said that the problem will be how to replace processors that have become obsolete and therefore out of the market, and where you can not simply replace all the associated hardware to pick up a current and patched processor. And I suspect that most of those who can change the associated hardware will simply migrate to AMD instead of taking another Intel.

Dream on

[sjbe]

"It is a scandal, and I want repaired processors for free."

And I want a pet unicorn. Come to think of it, unicorns are about as real a thing as a "repaired processor" since they physically cannot be repaired. He wants a replacement processor which almost certainly is never going to happen. Basically he's asking for every processor produced in the last 20 years to be replaced for free. If you think that's realistic I've got a bridge to sell you.

There will be plenty of legal action over this and the results of that will be the full extend of any compensation. Furthermore to get compensation he will have to show actual harm incurred. Simple fact is that at least so far there has been little to no tangible harm from this problem to date so standing will be an issue for anyone who sues. This might change in the coming months/years but until it does the chip makers aren't going to pay a dime to replace anyone's chip - flawed or otherwise.

Re:Freedom demands Open Hardware also

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a question of quality, not idealism and perverse incentives.

We aren't talking about IME here. You seem to be blindly assuming that Open hardware is always free of faults.

This is a question of quality. You seem to be blindly assuming that starts and ends with hardware faults. It does not, and it was the main point Theo was making here. Quality also has to do with how you handle faults when they happen.

And I'd sure as shit trust an open community a lot more than a proprietary closed one hell-bent on protecting profits at all costs. How many more bugs does Intel know about right now that they refuse to disclose because it might affect stock price? I rest my case.

Re:"I want repaired processors for free"

[Hal_Porter]

Oh I agree 1000%. It's not a freebie, it's Intel living up to the implicit contract to provide a CPU with the performance it was benchmarked when I bought it and not allow user mode stuff to read kernel memory.

In the UK you could make an argument that a processor with that bug was 'not fit for purpose'. Of course it's in the US that a class action suit has the highest chance of success and outside the US Intel will probably follow the US lead.

It'll be interesting to watch. Then again all my Intel chips are soldered to laptop motherboards. And rather elderly laptops at that - it's not like I'm going to convince Intel to convince Asus and Apple to recall motherboards that are out of warranty and do BGA rework to replace the CPUs.

However if I had machines with socketed CPUs and I was in the US I'd join a class action suit. Mind you Intel will presumably claim KPTI and its equivalents on Windows and macOS fix the security problem and any change in performance doesn't violate any sort of contractual agreement. Which they may or may not get away with. I think they probably will.

Re:"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk"

[TheRaven64]

To quote Linus "A *competent* CPU engineer would fix this by making sure speculation doesn't happen across protection domains."

That's bullshit. When Intel introduced speculation across protection domains everyone including Linux was happy because it reduced system call costs. Without this, as soon as you get to a syscall / sysenter instruction, you stall the pipeline until all pending instructions have been committed. On a modern Intel CPU with close to 200 instructions in flight at a time, that's a measurable performance overhead.

We've known for a long time that side channels of this kind were possible, but not that they were performant. The new attacks are not interesting because they're side channels that allow data to be disclosed, they're interesting because they're side channels that allow disclosure far faster than previously believed. CPU designers believed that this kind of attack could only be exploited to get a bit every few seconds, at which rate it's not really worth trying as an attack and is pretty easy for software to spot (hmm, why is this thread at 100% and triggering insane numbers of cache misses? Looks malicious...). Now we know that you can use these attacks to get data at about 0.5MB/s, so you can scan the whole of memory in a few minutes.

"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk"

[Misagon]

I was one of those who called "no way" at first, but just yesterday I found this quote from an Intel engineer. It was originally posted in a reddit thread but has since been deleted - but not before being confirmed by other former engineers at Intel.

As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently.

Why?

Let me set the scene: It's late in 2013. Intel is frantic about losing the mobile CPU wars to ARM. Meetings with all the validation groups. Head honcho in charge of Validation says something to the effect of: "We need to move faster. Validation at Intel is taking much longer than it does for our competition. We need to do whatever we can to reduce those times... we can't live forever in the shadow of the early 90's FDIV bug, we need to move on. Our competition is moving much faster than we are" - I'm paraphrasing. Many of the engineers in the room could remember the FDIV bug and the ensuing problems caused for Intel 20 years prior. Many of us were aghast that someone highly placed would suggest we needed to cut corners in validation - that wasn't explicitly said, of course, but that was the implicit message. That meeting there in late 2013 signalled a sea change at Intel to many of us who were there. And it didn't seem like it was going to be a good kind of sea change. Some of us chose to get out while the getting was good. As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently.

Re:"I want repaired processors for free"

[AmiMoJo]

Some people are seeing >50% performance loss. Take a look at this graph: https://www.epicgames.com/fort...

Clearly they are going to need to spend some serious cash on upgrading their servers. The thread is full of players who can't connect.

Interestingly Intel's CPU data pages contain benchmarks. It will be interesting to see if they update them.

Re:"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk"

[TheRaven64]

Was this attack known, and deemed an acceptable risk because of the incredible low rate at which data could supposedly be extracted?

Not this specific attack, but it was known that any source of nondeterminism in a processor was a source of side channels. These were largely ignored because these attacks get lots of papers at top security conferences but are really hard and slow to carry out in practice. Most of the existing attacks used the cache, but there are others involving things like the fact that computation on denormals is much slower than on normal floating point values (a fun one of these lets you scrape browser contents via WebGL and I don't believe has been mitigated yet in spite of being published a couple of years ago).

Speculative execution was known to be a potential source of these side channels for a while. Now that it's shown to be feasible, expect a lot more similar attacks.