Slashdot Mirror


OpenBSD Chief De Raadt Says No Easy Fix For New Intel CPU Bug 'TLBleed' (itwire.com)

Recompiling is unlikely to be a catch-all solution for a recently unveiled Intel CPU vulnerability known as TLBleed, the details of which were leaked on Friday, the head of the OpenBSD project Theo de Raadt says. iTWire reports: The details of TLBleed, which gets its name from the fact that the flaw targets the translation lookaside buffer, a CPU cache, were leaked to the British tech site, The Register; the side-channel vulnerability can be theoretically exploited to extract encryption keys and private information from programs. Former NSA hacker Jake Williams said on Twitter that a fix would probably need changes to the core operating system and were likely to involve "a ton of work to mitigate (mostly app recompile)." But de Raadt was not so sanguine. "There are people saying you can change the kernel's process scheduler," he told iTWire on Monday. "(It's) not so easy."

He said that Williams was lacking all the details and not thinking it through. "They actually have sufficient detail to think it through: the article says the TLB is shared between hyperthreading CPUs, and it is unsafe to share between two different contexts. Basically you can measure evictions against your own mappings, which indicates the other process is touching memory (you can determine the aliasing factors)."
De Raadt said he was still not prepared to say more, saying: "Please wait for the paper [which is due in August]."

2 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Special settings by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Theo: Worried
    Random Slashdotter: Not so worried

    No offense, but I’ll go with the OpenBSD and LibreSSL guy on security matters.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  2. Re:I am an old nobody by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know, I know nothing, I wrote z80 assembly as an intro.

    I learned on an MITS Altair-8800 computer that my roommate had in college. We played one dimensional, straight-line Pong, and had to flip the front-panel switches to reload the program after shutting it off. (5.1 Audio? Mouse? CRT? Printer? Floppy? Keyboard? Paper-tape? You must be joking.)

    After graduation, I ended up at his computer shop running CDOS, a CP/M improvement from Cromemco with hardware. They eventually upgraded from 8080 to a Z-80. Really neat, with those 2nd set of registers. We wrote COBOL and Fortran accounting software using embeeded software overlays and 8" floppies and 5-10M hard drives. (150K? 5 Meg? Is that right?? We only had 64K of RAM though, MAX) for companies.

    Hey, did you ever see that Zilog Z-80 paperback book (6"x8"? Weird size.) describing how all of the operations worked in pseudo-code? It was wonderful.

    I still have a Z-80 fold-out instruction card. Also an IBM 360 one, much longer. Not much useful now, but extremely useful at the time.

    Also, decades ago now, IBM produced (as an experiment, not a retail product) a mainframe computer-on-a-chip, but supposedly the firmware was changeable to directly run binary code from IBM 360, PDP, Amdahl, and maybe 3 other CPUs. A decade or more later you've got (we had internal Compaq In-Site cards) things which directly control the computer remotely, even when "it's off". I understand the new corporate ones have it all built on the motherboard. Still need power to the PS though, but you could insert floppy images and flash firmware while sitting at your desk. Neat-O!

    I used to understand how things worked, down to the bare metal. (Could program PICs and INT handlers and all that. You too, I'm sure. Remember 16550 UART serial chips with 14-byte internal cache? ) I fiddled with AI a bit in college in the late 70s. It was bloomin' math magic then, I could run the simple operations by hand or look at the intermediate data structures. But it was all just random junk -- except it would actually come out with working answers. I can't imagine and don't understand what they're doing now -- and really, I don't actually think they do either.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?