This kind of TLB invalidate is actually cheap on AMD, because they implement a tagged TLB with the cr3 value as the tag, so swapping cr3 values implicitly invalidates the TLB, but the entries become valid again when you reset the entry. The PCID feature, which is apparently the cause of this vulnerability, is largely a result of the fact that AMD patented this technique and so Intel doesn't use it.
Wouldn't the cross licensing agreements between Intel and AMD cover Intel using AMD's patented technique?
I would sooner believe that AMD saw a problem and implemented a fix and patented it while Intel decided it was too expensive to bother fixing.
I wonder if Microsoft will apply this change to systems using AMD processors whether they need it or not. Based on the Linux patches from Intel, that is what they intended.
I find it hard to believe that a virtual memory change will result in a 5-30% slowdown for Intel processors. Maybe for a few extremely specific (likely edge-case) tasks, but if there was a legitimate 5-30% performance decrease, you can bet there would be a far different solution in the works that would suitably fix the problem.
The software fix includes invalidating the page table cache on every task switch and OS call and reloading the page table cache creates a severe performance hit.
The only way for Intel to fix this is to replace the processor. Won't that be a fabulous marketing opportunity? Buy our new and improved processor to replace our old and inferior one because we screwed up!
When it comes to intel C compiler, optimizations that would work on AMD chips are left out when compiling for that CPU, because "we wouldn't presume to know what would work and what wouldn't on a competitor's chip!"
So they test for it based on the vendor ID instead of the feature flags doing exactly what they said they are not.
I suspect that public pressure, probably as coordinated by our benevolent billion-dollar tech overl^Wcompanies, would be sufficient to convince Democrats to see the issue as an opportunity to slam Republicans rather than an opportunity to appease their big-media donors.
What good is a two party system if you do not buy both parties?
Taxis and airport shuttles would kill that idea. Ever notice how rare it is for major airports to be accessible by good public transit? Now you know why.
The same thing happens at sea ports preventing tracks being laid all the way to the port.
What the fuck is wrong with those people? Austin did the same God Damned stupid thing with their stupid fucking train. It goes from waay north to downtown but not to the airport.
What were those morons thinking?
It does not matter what they were thinking. What matters is what the taxi industry thinks.
So? If someone sends the cops to my house I'm entitled to not be shot by the cops just because they thought it would be fitting to kill me. That's what a judge is for.
Judges have already ruled on this multiple times. You have no such entitlement or even right.
I'm sure they can turn it into a felony if they want to.
I assume that is what they will do. The Kansas felony murder rule does not seem to apply in this case and filing a false police report is apparently only a misdemeanor anyway.
People don't want to pay taxes so the cops have to concentrate on crimes such as pot smoking where they can invoke civil forfeiture to make sure of getting a pay check.
Pot smokers are also unlikely to be violent. Going after violent criminals is much more hazardous.
By the time he was standing sideways however, any officer who just arrived not seeing before this point, including the one who fired, would only see what looks like an intentionally hidden hand being moved in an action one would do if they had a weapon and was about to raise it.
With the fact the shooting officer only had partial information being witnessed, and that partial information does very clearly look like the victim has a weapon, I can't fault that officer for his actions.
Only once you see the footage before that point do you clearly see he is unarmed.
So the office who arrived later and should have known his own lack of situational awareness because of his professionalism and training shot anyway? I can fault him for his actions.
Armed man sets up ambush outside man's house, waits for him to open the door, yells incomprehensible instructions while blind the man then shoots him dead a quarter of a second later.
Sounds like murder to me.
There is no requirement to issue any instructions.
The person that called the swat team with a fake story to put swat on high alert; that person is the murderer.
That is not clear yet. The Kansas felony murder rule requires the commission of a short list of felonies and filing a false police report is only a misdemeanor. I assume prosecutors will try to stretch the law to cover it.
What confounds me is what even IF this were a real hostage situation, why would you shoot at whoever comes to the door immediately? You might just as easily hit an escaping hostage as the perp.
So what? Qualified immunity covers killing bystanders and hostages. There is no legal reason for law enforcement not to preemptively shoot.
There was more than one officer involved. The one yelling impossible commands did not kill the civilian and there were others watching who did nothing to prevent what happened.
A decent system allows for innocent people to be confused and not comply instantly, without getting executed on the spot.
A police officer could carry a shield to protect himself, instead of a finger on the trigger.
Or use local cover which they had in abundance. There was a firearm safety rule 2, 3, and 4 violation. The police officer had already decided to execute whoever answered the door.
If someone is pounding on my door at night there is a very good chance of my being armed when checking the door.
That would be too bad for you if the police lack a warrant, lack probably cause, lack reasonable suspicion, show up in the middle of the night, do not bother to identify themselves, and do not issue any lawful orders. The lesson to be learned is to shoot first with something like a Garand since they are going to murder you anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of TLB invalidate is actually cheap on AMD, because they implement a tagged TLB with the cr3 value as the tag, so swapping cr3 values implicitly invalidates the TLB, but the entries become valid again when you reset the entry. The PCID feature, which is apparently the cause of this vulnerability, is largely a result of the fact that AMD patented this technique and so Intel doesn't use it.
Wouldn't the cross licensing agreements between Intel and AMD cover Intel using AMD's patented technique?
I would sooner believe that AMD saw a problem and implemented a fix and patented it while Intel decided it was too expensive to bother fixing.
I wonder if Microsoft will apply this change to systems using AMD processors whether they need it or not. Based on the Linux patches from Intel, that is what they intended.
For the FDIV bug Intel recalled the affected cpus.
The number of CPU affected by the FDIV bug was minor compared to this and they were all replaceable (socketted) unlike this.
I find it hard to believe that a virtual memory change will result in a 5-30% slowdown for Intel processors. Maybe for a few extremely specific (likely edge-case) tasks, but if there was a legitimate 5-30% performance decrease, you can bet there would be a far different solution in the works that would suitably fix the problem.
The software fix includes invalidating the page table cache on every task switch and OS call and reloading the page table cache creates a severe performance hit.
The only way for Intel to fix this is to replace the processor. Won't that be a fabulous marketing opportunity? Buy our new and improved processor to replace our old and inferior one because we screwed up!
When it comes to intel C compiler, optimizations that would work on AMD chips are left out when compiling for that CPU, because "we wouldn't presume to know what would work and what wouldn't on a competitor's chip!"
So they test for it based on the vendor ID instead of the feature flags doing exactly what they said they are not.
Camping on public land was the greatest protest idea since the 60's
Since the 1960s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Constitution explicitly has that copyrights exist for a limited time.
According to the USSC, the time is only limited in the sense that breaking any encryption through brute force is limited.
I suspect that public pressure, probably as coordinated by our benevolent billion-dollar tech overl^Wcompanies, would be sufficient to convince Democrats to see the issue as an opportunity to slam Republicans rather than an opportunity to appease their big-media donors.
What good is a two party system if you do not buy both parties?
And some wonder why there's so many who don't respect copyright.
The original deal was reneged upon and the public got nothing in return on each extension.
They will alter the deal. Pray they do not alter it any further.
Taxis and airport shuttles would kill that idea. Ever notice how rare it is for major airports to be accessible by good public transit? Now you know why.
The same thing happens at sea ports preventing tracks being laid all the way to the port.
The monorail in Vegas does NOT go to the airport.
What the fuck is wrong with those people? Austin did the same God Damned stupid thing with their stupid fucking train. It goes from waay north to downtown but not to the airport.
What were those morons thinking?
It does not matter what they were thinking. What matters is what the taxi industry thinks.
So? If someone sends the cops to my house I'm entitled to not be shot by the cops just because they thought it would be fitting to kill me. That's what a judge is for.
Judges have already ruled on this multiple times. You have no such entitlement or even right.
The defense would pretty much have to argue that the call made the cop's belief "reasonable" even in the absence of any confirming evidence.
The prosecution would have to get past qualified immunity first.
I'm sure they can turn it into a felony if they want to.
I assume that is what they will do. The Kansas felony murder rule does not seem to apply in this case and filing a false police report is apparently only a misdemeanor anyway.
People don't want to pay taxes so the cops have to concentrate on crimes such as pot smoking where they can invoke civil forfeiture to make sure of getting a pay check.
Pot smokers are also unlikely to be violent. Going after violent criminals is much more hazardous.
Or if the police kill one of his accomplices.
Does not matter. The police just killed another person. Bet he was unarmed too.
Also, it counts as another firearm death justifying further gun control on civilians.
By the time he was standing sideways however, any officer who just arrived not seeing before this point, including the one who fired, would only see what looks like an intentionally hidden hand being moved in an action one would do if they had a weapon and was about to raise it.
With the fact the shooting officer only had partial information being witnessed, and that partial information does very clearly look like the victim has a weapon, I can't fault that officer for his actions.
Only once you see the footage before that point do you clearly see he is unarmed.
So the office who arrived later and should have known his own lack of situational awareness because of his professionalism and training shot anyway? I can fault him for his actions.
Armed man sets up ambush outside man's house, waits for him to open the door, yells incomprehensible instructions while blind the man then shoots him dead a quarter of a second later.
Sounds like murder to me.
There is no requirement to issue any instructions.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
The person that called the swat team with a fake story to put swat on high alert; that person is the murderer.
That is not clear yet. The Kansas felony murder rule requires the commission of a short list of felonies and filing a false police report is only a misdemeanor. I assume prosecutors will try to stretch the law to cover it.
What confounds me is what even IF this were a real hostage situation, why would you shoot at whoever comes to the door immediately? You might just as easily hit an escaping hostage as the perp.
So what? Qualified immunity covers killing bystanders and hostages. There is no legal reason for law enforcement not to preemptively shoot.
There was more than one officer involved. The one yelling impossible commands did not kill the civilian and there were others watching who did nothing to prevent what happened.
Or maybe the police have been trained to shoot first without justification because justification it is not required.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
A decent system allows for innocent people to be confused and not comply instantly, without getting executed on the spot.
A police officer could carry a shield to protect himself, instead of a finger on the trigger.
Or use local cover which they had in abundance. There was a firearm safety rule 2, 3, and 4 violation. The police officer had already decided to execute whoever answered the door.
If someone is pounding on my door at night there is a very good chance of my being armed when checking the door.
That would be too bad for you if the police lack a warrant, lack probably cause, lack reasonable suspicion, show up in the middle of the night, do not bother to identify themselves, and do not issue any lawful orders. The lesson to be learned is to shoot first with something like a Garand since they are going to murder you anyway.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
What happened to Andrew Scott is not even the only example.