Slashdot Mirror


Intel's Reworked Microcode Security Fix License No Longer Prohibits Benchmarking (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Intel has backtracked on the license for its latest microcode update that mitigates security vulnerabilities in its processors -- after the previous wording outlawed public benchmarking of the chips. The reason for Intel's insistence on a vow of silence is that -- even with the new microcode in place -- turning off hyper-threading is necessary to protect virtual machines from attack via Foreshadow -- and that move comes with a potential performance hit. Predictably, Intel's contractual omerta had the opposite effect and drew attention to the problem. "Performance is so bad on the latest Spectre patch that Intel had to prohibit publishing benchmarks," said Lucas Holt, MidnightBSD project lead, via Twitter.

In response to the outcry, Intel subsequently said it would rewrite the licensing terms. And now the fix is in. Via Twitter, Imad Sousou, corporate VP and general manager of Intel Open Source Technology Center, on Thursday said: "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community." The reworked license no longer prohibits benchmarking.
Long-time Slashdot reader and open-source pioneer, Bruce Perens, first brought Intel's microcode update to our attention. In a phone interview with The Register, Perens said he approved of the change. "This is a relatively innocuous license for proprietary software and it can be distributed in the non-free section of Debian, which is where is used to be, and it should be distributable by other Linux distributions," he said. "You can't expect every lawyer to understand CPUs. Sometimes they have to have a deep conversation with their technical people."

7 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks, Bruce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot may be a bully pulpit, but Bruce Perens desrves the credit.

  2. And now we see the true Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No faster than AMD's offerings, but at a 50% higher price. And they've been doing this for over a decade, knowingly putting out flawed CPUs just to beat the performance charts.

    You like that Intel Inside bragging right? Open up your wallet then, the lying cheating fuckers at Intel would like to take as much as you're willing to give.

    1. Re:And now we see the true Intel by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they've been doing this for over a decade, knowingly putting out flawed CPUs just to beat the performance charts.

      Intel has done many slimy things, but I don't think that is one of them. Putting out flawed CPUs, yes, but knowingly... I doubt it. AMD was lucky on this one, or maybe somebody at AMD actually did realize the security ramifications of the interaction between speculative execution and protection levels. If so then they richy deserve bragging rights, I would really enjoy hearing the details whole story. But I doubt it happened.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  3. How to avoid future licensing issues: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only buy AMD.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Accomplishing just the opposite by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was utterly stupid of them. They had to know that this would only draw more attention to the fact and they had to know that they couldn't prohibit benchmarking. That simply wasn't going to happen. And now that they've had to retract this idiotic policy, they've practically ensured that every tech site is going to do loads of benchmarking when they might not have otherwise been interested (there were a few when Meltdown and Spectre first came out, but I haven't seen a lot of benchmarks for the newer varients), but because Intel turned this into a big story, now everyone is going to want to do benchmarks to ride the renewed wave of interest.

    This was like getting pulled over by a cop and shouting, "Nothing suspicious in the trunk!" before the cop has even had a chance to ask for your license and registration.

  5. Seriously? by franzrogar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On a binary blob, closed source, forbidden to decompile, study or whatever they wrote this: "As an active member of the open source community"?

    Shame on them!

  6. Re:See? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where did you get "dumb fucking lawyer" part? Nothing in Intel's response indicates there was any error: "we have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates".

    They corrected it after it become news and topic of embarrassing public discussion. What other choice did they have?