There actually is a straightforward and appealing pro-market case to make here and it could attract many (R)s, but unfortunately our technology giants are so wrapped around their PC politics axle that courting an (R) to come over to their side is as yet unthinkable; they played hardball social issues politics for years and now they're in the cold.
It's worse than that Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter all donate only to Democrats. And Comcast et al donate heavily to Republicans.
So the Republicans will say they oppose 'government regulation of the Internet'. However they Don't seem to mind the local regulations that gives Comcast a monopoly on selling high speed internet service.
Meanwhile the Democrats say they want a free and open Internet and Net Neutrality by which they mean 'title II regulation of ISPs'. However they're happy with Google and Amazon blocking each other's products on their platform and Youtube and Facebook censoring 'hate speech', aka 'speech Democrats hate'. And in fact even when the FCC was led by Wheeler who supported Net Neutrality he didn't have a problem with T Mobile zero rating services. Also Google and Facebook launched a non Net Neutral Free Basics service outside the USA.
I.e. no party in this bunfight has any principles at all - they're just doing what companies that contribute to them tell them to do. And all those companies care about is being able to shaft their complements who donate to the other side.
People settle out of court because they've been advised they'll lose more if it goes to trial
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
Of course crediting the composition to John Cage/Batt rather than "Batt/Cage" might have influenced things.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
He apparently wrote the music for The Wombles. If I were him, I'd be terrified of some slick QC reading this out in an ominous voice as evidence of my flagrant plagiaristic tendencies
Underground, overground, Wombling free The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we Making good use of the things that we find Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days When he wasn't behind the times With his map of the world Pick up the papers and take them to Tobermory
Wombles are organised, work as a team Wombles are tidy and Wombles are clean Underground, overground, Wombling free The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
People don't notice us, they never see Under their noses a Womble may be Womble by night and we Womble by day Looking for litter to trundle away
We're so incredibly utterly devious Making the most of everything Even bottles and tins Pick up the pieces and make them into something new Is what we do
Underground, overground, Wombling free The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we Making good use of the things that we find Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Emphasis mine.
"The things that everyday folk - like for example John Cage - leave behind, Mr Batt?"
Also in the 80's countless British children died from HIV caught from junkie's needles attempting to 'womble' without wearing CDC approved anti infection gear - two layers of latex gloves, sterilized with bleach after use, NBC suits, gas masks and so on. Ironically children so dressed would have looked a bit like Wombles.
Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement with representatives of the late avant-garde composer John Cage, for a rumoured £100,000. The man behind the Wombles' hits of the late 1970s, Batt stood accused of copyright infringement. What made his case special, though, was that he had been accused of stealing precisely nothing.
Earlier this year, on his classical/rock fusion album Classical Graffiti (played by octet the Planets), he included a self-explanatory track called A One Minute Silence. Credited to Batt/Cage, it seemed a deliberate but innocuous echo of 4'33", the four minutes and 33 seconds of silence with which Cage once outraged audiences. (First performed at a concert in Woodstock in 1952, 4'33" required the performer merely to sit motionless at any instrument for the allotted time.)
Classical Graffiti soared to the top of the classical charts, where it remained for a lucrative three months. Eight weeks into this reign, however, Cage's publishers, Peters Edition, contacted Batt and declared that he had, as it were, no right to silence. The rest is now (legal) history.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
Not only was One Minute Silence not intended to be taken remotely seriously, says Batt, it in fact began life as a space-filler. "It was me taking the mickey out of John Cage - although he was probably taking the mickey in the first place. For most of the CD, the Planets play fusion music, and at the end of the album I wanted to add some purer classical tracks. So I put a minute's space between the two sections, I just thought, wouldn't it be fun if I called it One Minute Silence, and credited it to Batt/Cage?"
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
There are, says Riddle, precedents for this scenario - for example, Frank Zappa made a recording of 4'33" that was credited to John Cage, and for which royalties were paid. Indeed, for him the case was less about the highbrow question of whether or not silence can be copyright, but about whether or not this was actually a performace of Cage's piece. Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Either way, a vital part of Batt's payout was that no future money from the CD would go to the Cage camp. Batt explains: "We're going to sell more records, we've had fun with this, and I thought, I'll pay some money over to show goodwill - but of course the royalties remain mine for the future."
Given silence can by copyright, it's likely white noise can too.
The good thing is after you die, if your family missed you they could log into their Pro subscription to Amazooglebook Afterlife and find out what you would be doing if you were still alive.
So it would say something like "Right now he'd be having a shit, using paper products made by Kimberly Clark and secretly browsing www.reddit.com/r/holocaustporn on his phone, made by Apple. He would be crying"
And then they'd feel less bad about you dying.
Also on the Pro subscription to Amazooglebook Life you don't choose what to buy. They just send you the stuff the algorithms think you need/can afford and take the money from your Basic Income and the ads tell you to like it.
An entity which could encode a message in the distribution of Mersenne exponents would be very powerful indeed. It'd be even harder than encoding a message into physical constants which a hyper advanced civilisation may be able to do by creating new universes inside black holes.
On December 20, 1994, Intel offered to replace all flawed Pentium processors on the basis of request, in response to mounting public pressure. Although it turned out that only a small fraction of Pentium owners bothered to get their chips replaced, the financial impact on the company was significant. On January 17, 1995, Intel announced "a pre-tax charge of $475 million against earnings, ostensibly the total cost associated with replacement of the flawed processors." Some of the defective chips were later turned into key rings by Intel.
There are two separate features-Secure Memory Encryption (SME) and Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)-that both use the same hardware support that will be provided in upcoming processors. That support includes an AES-128 hardware engine inline with the RAM and memory controller so that memory can be encrypted and decrypted on the way in and out of the processor with "minimal performance impact". The data inside the processor (e.g. registers, caches) will be in the clear; there will just be a "little extra latency" when RAM is involved.
It seems like the ASIC (the AMD equivalent of Intel PCIDs which actually predates PCIDs) - is part of the AES key.
The hypervisor then allocates an "address space identifier" (ASID), which is what identifies the guest (and the key for that guest's memory). That ASID is provided to the secure processor with a request to generate or load a key into the AES engine and to encrypt the BIOS/OS image using that key. The hypervisor then sets up and runs the guest using the ASID assigned; the memory controller, AES engine, and secure processor will work together to ensure that the memory is encrypted and decrypted appropriately.
On the other hand it's aimed at hiding hypervisor data from guest OSs and vice versa. It's not designed to hide process or kernel data from other processes on the same OS. Then again AMD isn't vulnerable to the KPTI hole as far as I can tell - that's to do with Intel's implementation of speculative execution.
Of course AMD might be vulnerable to other bugs like this. Like you say, Spectre seems to affect "Intel, AMD and ARM".
Spectre attacks involve inducing a victim to speculatively perform operations that would not occur during correct program execution and which leak the victim's confidential information via a side channel to the adversary. This paper describes practical attacks that combine methodology from side channel attacks, fault attacks, and return-oriented programming that can read arbitrary memory from the victim's process. More broadly, the paper shows that speculative execution implementations violate the security assumptions underpinning numerous software security mechanisms, including operating system process separation, static analysis, containerization, just-in-time (JIT) compilation, and countermeasures to cache timing/side-channel attacks. These attacks represent a serious threat to actual systems, since vulnerable speculative execution capabilities are found in microprocessors from Intel, AMD, and ARM that are used in billions of devices
If AMD are confident enough in their AES engine to put in in inline with the RAM and memory controller, they could probably work out how to make it do process isolation by encryption. E.g. if you could set it up so kernel memory was AES 128 encrypted with a random key then it would matter less if a user process was able to read it.
But what happens when you have virtualization? AMD's scheme protects guests from hosts. I'm not sure how you could additionally protect kernels in a guest OS from processes in that same guest OS.
" The authorities have advised that Facebook withdrawal syndrome has no known cure. FWS sufferers can only be stopped by destroying their brainstem. They're rather like zombies in that regard
[Ominous growling is heard from off camera, followed by screams, gunfire and the sound of iPhone shutters as the broadcast cuts out to be replaced with static] "
The lock in of Messenger is real. Most people don't even like Messenger, but they use it any way. A bit like Microsoft Windows, really;-)
Exactly. Move from one ISP to another and no one else would notice. Stop using FB and you lose contact with everyone who uses it who you don't share another network with.
Funny thing is that this bug is almost an example of Intel throttling old hardware. The KPTI fix is apparently less of a performance hit if you have a new Intel CPU with PCIDs
Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. More recent Intel chips have features - such as PCID - to reduce the performance hit. Your mileage may vary.
PCID - Process Context ID - means you can tag the TLB entries with a 11 bit process ID.
Also, the Intel manual says bit 0-11 of CR3 is used as the PCID. Does it somehow related to the usual process id user mode code see? If yes, does it mean it imposes a limit on the # of user processes (4096) allowed ?
Which means you don't need to flush the whole TLB - you just invalidate the ones which belong to a process you're switching away from
A PCID is a 12-bit identifier, and may be thought of as a "Process-ID" for TLBs. If CR4.PCIDE = 0 (but 17 of CR4), the current PCID is always 000H; otherwise, the current PCID is the value of bits 11:0 of CR3. Non-zero PCIDs are enabled by setting the PCIDE flag (bit 17 of CR4).
When a logical processor creates entries in the TLBs (Section 4.10.2 of the x86 prog reference manual) and paging structure caches (Section 4.10.3), it associates those entries with the current PCID (Oh... such a loose association of PCID with PID). Note that this means that where the PGD is located is somehow being interpreted in the PID "process context". When using entries in the TLBs and paging-structure caches to translate a linear address, a logical processor uses only those entries associated with the current PCID, and hence flushes of the TLB are avoided.
Presumably you could have on PCID value for the kernel and the other 4095 for tasks and not need to go a TLB flush when switching until the PCID value wrapped.
Of course that means you need a sufficiently recent Intel CPU.
Ionescu also says that performance drop on a system with PCID (Process-Context Identifiers), available on most modern Macs, is "minimal," so most users may not see an impact on day-to-day Mac usage.
Of course if you have an 2012 Macbook Pro you've got an i5-3210M so you don't have PCID so you'll either have an insecure machine or a performance hit.
Interesting thing is if there was a class action lawsuit, I wonder if you could get Intel to give you a new CPU with PCID to minimise the impact of the bug fix.
However american scientiests seem to use it as synomym for 'proof'. Which is pretty clear from all the/. posts using the word.
But falsification is completely the opposite of proof. Proof is what mathematicians do - you can invent/discover an elegant theory and prove it is mathematically consistent.
You can't do that with physics because there are loads of elegant and consistent theories which don't match reality at all and a few arguably less elegant ones and less consistent ones which do - so you need to have experimental evidence to decide which theories are compatible with reality.
E.g. look at renormalisation in quantum mechanics. It's not elegant at all and arguably mathematically invalid, but it does produce a theory which matches reality very well indeed.
Renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
Quantum field theory, which is used to calculate the effects of fundamental forces at the quantum level, began with quantum electrodynamics, the quantum theory of the electromagnetic force. Initially it seemed that the theory led to infinite results. For example, the electron's ability constantly to emit and reabsorb "virtual" photons (i.e., photons that exist only for the time allowed by the uncertainty principle) means that its total energy and its mass are infinite. However, by redefining the mass of the "bare" electron to include these virtual processes and setting it equal to the measured mass-that is, by renormalizing-the problem is removed.
Quantum electrodynamics has been the prototype for other quantum field theories. In particular, the highly successful electroweak theory, which incorporates the weak force together with the electromagnetic force, has proved to be renormalizable. Also, quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, appears to be renormalizable. However, a renormalizable theory that includes all the fundamental forces, in particular gravity, remains elusive.
I've heard the theory the parties switched sides at some point in the 20th century - though the most often claim is that it happened in the 60's not the 30's.
Slashdot Mirror
Him and Bradley "Chelsea" Manning are sure making the case that it's a good thing to hire transsexuals to work in intelligence.
There actually is a straightforward and appealing pro-market case to make here and it could attract many (R)s, but unfortunately our technology giants are so wrapped around their PC politics axle that courting an (R) to come over to their side is as yet unthinkable; they played hardball social issues politics for years and now they're in the cold.
It's worse than that Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter all donate only to Democrats. And Comcast et al donate heavily to Republicans.
So the Republicans will say they oppose 'government regulation of the Internet'. However they Don't seem to mind the local regulations that gives Comcast a monopoly on selling high speed internet service.
Meanwhile the Democrats say they want a free and open Internet and Net Neutrality by which they mean 'title II regulation of ISPs'. However they're happy with Google and Amazon blocking each other's products on their platform and Youtube and Facebook censoring 'hate speech', aka 'speech Democrats hate'. And in fact even when the FCC was led by Wheeler who supported Net Neutrality he didn't have a problem with T Mobile zero rating services. Also Google and Facebook launched a non Net Neutral Free Basics service outside the USA.
I.e. no party in this bunfight has any principles at all - they're just doing what companies that contribute to them tell them to do. And all those companies care about is being able to shaft their complements who donate to the other side.
Punk rock songs seem to work best under three minutes.
People settle out of court because they've been advised they'll lose more if it goes to trial
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
Of course crediting the composition to John Cage/Batt rather than "Batt/Cage" might have influenced things.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
He apparently wrote the music for The Wombles. If I were him, I'd be terrified of some slick QC reading this out in an ominous voice as evidence of my flagrant plagiaristic tendencies
https://www.songlyrics.com/the...
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days
When he wasn't behind the times
With his map of the world
Pick up the papers and take them to Tobermory
Wombles are organised, work as a team
Wombles are tidy and Wombles are clean
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
People don't notice us, they never see
Under their noses a Womble may be
Womble by night and we Womble by day
Looking for litter to trundle away
We're so incredibly utterly devious
Making the most of everything
Even bottles and tins
Pick up the pieces and make them into something new
Is what we do
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind
Emphasis mine.
"The things that everyday folk - like for example John Cage - leave behind, Mr Batt?"
Also in the 80's countless British children died from HIV caught from junkie's needles attempting to 'womble' without wearing CDC approved anti infection gear - two layers of latex gloves, sterilized with bleach after use, NBC suits, gas masks and so on. Ironically children so dressed would have looked a bit like Wombles.
John Cage's estate successfully sued and got damages over someone violating the copyright on 4'33", Cage's famous silent piece.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul...
Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement with representatives of the late avant-garde composer John Cage, for a rumoured £100,000. The man behind the Wombles' hits of the late 1970s, Batt stood accused of copyright infringement. What made his case special, though, was that he had been accused of stealing precisely nothing.
Earlier this year, on his classical/rock fusion album Classical Graffiti (played by octet the Planets), he included a self-explanatory track called A One Minute Silence. Credited to Batt/Cage, it seemed a deliberate but innocuous echo of 4'33", the four minutes and 33 seconds of silence with which Cage once outraged audiences. (First performed at a concert in Woodstock in 1952, 4'33" required the performer merely to sit motionless at any instrument for the allotted time.)
Classical Graffiti soared to the top of the classical charts, where it remained for a lucrative three months. Eight weeks into this reign, however, Cage's publishers, Peters Edition, contacted Batt and declared that he had, as it were, no right to silence. The rest is now (legal) history.
Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."
Not only was One Minute Silence not intended to be taken remotely seriously, says Batt, it in fact began life as a space-filler. "It was me taking the mickey out of John Cage - although he was probably taking the mickey in the first place. For most of the CD, the Planets play fusion music, and at the end of the album I wanted to add some purer classical tracks. So I put a minute's space between the two sections, I just thought, wouldn't it be fun if I called it One Minute Silence, and credited it to Batt/Cage?"
Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."
I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."
There are, says Riddle, precedents for this scenario - for example, Frank Zappa made a recording of 4'33" that was credited to John Cage, and for which royalties were paid. Indeed, for him the case was less about the highbrow question of whether or not silence can be copyright, but about whether or not this was actually a performace of Cage's piece. Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Either way, a vital part of Batt's payout was that no future money from the CD would go to the Cage camp. Batt explains: "We're going to sell more records, we've had fun with this, and I thought, I'll pay some money over to show goodwill - but of course the royalties remain mine for the future."
Given silence can by copyright, it's likely white noise can too.
Yeah, I think they should have to replace the Core(TM) i5-3210M in my ageing Macbook Pro.
The good thing is after you die, if your family missed you they could log into their Pro subscription to Amazooglebook Afterlife and find out what you would be doing if you were still alive.
So it would say something like "Right now he'd be having a shit, using paper products made by Kimberly Clark and secretly browsing www.reddit.com/r/holocaustporn on his phone, made by Apple. He would be crying"
And then they'd feel less bad about you dying.
Also on the Pro subscription to Amazooglebook Life you don't choose what to buy. They just send you the stuff the algorithms think you need/can afford and take the money from your Basic Income and the ads tell you to like it.
As a percentage of their production, the numbers are similar.
I bet it makes you feel powerful knowing your followers devotion to you is so fanatical you can barely keep them from attacking your enemies.
Q: Now Apple have switched to Intel chips what's the difference between a Mac and a PC?
A: About $500
Lawyers are the carriers of force in the American system, rather like virtual photons in QED.
Well yeah. That's why I think joining a class action lawsuit might be a good idea. They might decide to settle it by giving out free chips.
An entity which could encode a message in the distribution of Mersenne exponents would be very powerful indeed. It'd be even harder than encoding a message into physical constants which a hyper advanced civilisation may be able to do by creating new universes inside black holes.
VxWorks without the VxVMI option doesn't have any memory protection at all. So a VxWorks system is unaffected by this bug!
You might want to get yourself a strong coffee and pay attention in code reviews though.
The CPU has both Rom and Ram for microcode. Microcode updates change the Ram.
https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-90...
I wonder what would happen if people with socketed CPUs launched a class action lawsuit demanding a replacement?
With the FDIV Intel offered to replace CPUs free of charge and took a $475 million charge to fund it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On December 20, 1994, Intel offered to replace all flawed Pentium processors on the basis of request, in response to mounting public pressure. Although it turned out that only a small fraction of Pentium owners bothered to get their chips replaced, the financial impact on the company was significant. On January 17, 1995, Intel announced "a pre-tax charge of $475 million against earnings, ostensibly the total cost associated with replacement of the flawed processors." Some of the defective chips were later turned into key rings by Intel.
The AMD scheme does AES-128 on the fly when reading anything from DRAM (!)
https://lwn.net/Articles/69982...
There are two separate features-Secure Memory Encryption (SME) and Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)-that both use the same hardware support that will be provided in upcoming processors. That support includes an AES-128 hardware engine inline with the RAM and memory controller so that memory can be encrypted and decrypted on the way in and out of the processor with "minimal performance impact". The data inside the processor (e.g. registers, caches) will be in the clear; there will just be a "little extra latency" when RAM is involved.
It seems like the ASIC (the AMD equivalent of Intel PCIDs which actually predates PCIDs) - is part of the AES key.
The hypervisor then allocates an "address space identifier" (ASID), which is what identifies the guest (and the key for that guest's memory). That ASID is provided to the secure processor with a request to generate or load a key into the AES engine and to encrypt the BIOS/OS image using that key. The hypervisor then sets up and runs the guest using the ASID assigned; the memory controller, AES engine, and secure processor will work together to ensure that the memory is encrypted and decrypted appropriately.
On the other hand it's aimed at hiding hypervisor data from guest OSs and vice versa. It's not designed to hide process or kernel data from other processes on the same OS. Then again AMD isn't vulnerable to the KPTI hole as far as I can tell - that's to do with Intel's implementation of speculative execution.
Of course AMD might be vulnerable to other bugs like this. Like you say, Spectre seems to affect "Intel, AMD and ARM".
https://www.exploit-db.com/doc...
Spectre attacks involve inducing a victim to speculatively perform operations that would not occur during correct program execution and which leak the victim's confidential information via a side channel to the adversary. This paper describes practical attacks that combine methodology from side channel attacks, fault attacks, and return-oriented programming that can read arbitrary memory from the victim's process. More broadly, the paper shows that speculative execution implementations violate the security assumptions underpinning numerous software security mechanisms, including operating system process separation, static analysis, containerization, just-in-time (JIT) compilation, and countermeasures to cache timing/side-channel attacks. These attacks represent a serious threat to actual systems, since vulnerable speculative execution capabilities are found in microprocessors from Intel, AMD, and ARM that are used in billions of devices
If AMD are confident enough in their AES engine to put in in inline with the RAM and memory controller, they could probably work out how to make it do process isolation by encryption. E.g. if you could set it up so kernel memory was AES 128 encrypted with a random key then it would matter less if a user process was able to read it.
But what happens when you have virtualization? AMD's scheme protects guests from hosts. I'm not sure how you could additionally protect kernels in a guest OS from processes in that same guest OS.
https://pics.me.me/the-more-of...
" The authorities have advised that Facebook withdrawal syndrome has no known cure. FWS sufferers can only be stopped by destroying their brainstem. They're rather like zombies in that regard
[Ominous growling is heard from off camera, followed by screams, gunfire and the sound of iPhone shutters as the broadcast cuts out to be replaced with static] "
The lock in of Messenger is real. Most people don't even like Messenger, but they use it any way. A bit like Microsoft Windows, really ;-)
Exactly. Move from one ISP to another and no one else would notice. Stop using FB and you lose contact with everyone who uses it who you don't share another network with.
Funny thing is that this bug is almost an example of Intel throttling old hardware. The KPTI fix is apparently less of a performance hit if you have a new Intel CPU with PCIDs
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Crucially, these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. The effects are still being benchmarked, however we're looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model. More recent Intel chips have features - such as PCID - to reduce the performance hit. Your mileage may vary.
PCID - Process Context ID - means you can tag the TLB entries with a 11 bit process ID.
http://forum.osdev.org/viewtop...
Also, the Intel manual says bit 0-11 of CR3 is used as the PCID. Does it somehow related to the usual process id user mode code see? If yes, does it mean it imposes a limit on the # of user processes (4096) allowed ?
Which means you don't need to flush the whole TLB - you just invalidate the ones which belong to a process you're switching away from
http://linuxeco.com/?p=488
A PCID is a 12-bit identifier, and may be thought of as a "Process-ID" for TLBs. If CR4.PCIDE = 0 (but 17 of CR4), the current PCID is always 000H; otherwise, the current PCID is the value of bits 11:0 of CR3. Non-zero PCIDs are enabled by setting the PCIDE flag (bit 17 of CR4).
When a logical processor creates entries in the TLBs (Section 4.10.2 of the x86 prog reference manual) and paging structure caches (Section 4.10.3), it associates those entries with the current PCID (Oh ... such a loose association of PCID with PID). Note that this means that where the PGD is located is somehow being interpreted in the PID "process context". When using entries in the TLBs and paging-structure caches to translate a linear address, a logical processor uses only those entries associated with the current PCID, and hence flushes of the TLB are avoided.
Presumably you could have on PCID value for the kernel and the other 4095 for tasks and not need to go a TLB flush when switching until the PCID value wrapped.
Of course that means you need a sufficiently recent Intel CPU.
https://software.intel.com/sit...
FMA, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, INVPCID, LZCNT, TSX - Haswell and later
I.e. you need a Haswell 4xxx processor or later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At least for the Linux KPTI fix it seems like it does support PCID
https://lwn.net/Articles/74060...
- Integrated all fixes and Peters rewrite of the PCID/TLB flush code.
So does the macOS fix
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
Ionescu also says that performance drop on a system with PCID (Process-Context Identifiers), available on most modern Macs, is "minimal," so most users may not see an impact on day-to-day Mac usage.
Of course if you have an 2012 Macbook Pro you've got an i5-3210M so you don't have PCID so you'll either have an insecure machine or a performance hit.
Interesting thing is if there was a class action lawsuit, I wonder if you could get Intel to give you a new CPU with PCID to minimise the impact of the bug fix.
However american scientiests seem to use it as synomym for 'proof'. Which is pretty clear from all the /. posts using the word.
But falsification is completely the opposite of proof. Proof is what mathematicians do - you can invent/discover an elegant theory and prove it is mathematically consistent.
You can't do that with physics because there are loads of elegant and consistent theories which don't match reality at all and a few arguably less elegant ones and less consistent ones which do - so you need to have experimental evidence to decide which theories are compatible with reality.
E.g. look at renormalisation in quantum mechanics. It's not elegant at all and arguably mathematically invalid, but it does produce a theory which matches reality very well indeed.
https://www.britannica.com/sci...
Renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
Quantum field theory, which is used to calculate the effects of fundamental forces at the quantum level, began with quantum electrodynamics, the quantum theory of the electromagnetic force. Initially it seemed that the theory led to infinite results. For example, the electron's ability constantly to emit and reabsorb "virtual" photons (i.e., photons that exist only for the time allowed by the uncertainty principle) means that its total energy and its mass are infinite. However, by redefining the mass of the "bare" electron to include these virtual processes and setting it equal to the measured mass-that is, by renormalizing-the problem is removed.
Quantum electrodynamics has been the prototype for other quantum field theories. In particular, the highly successful electroweak theory, which incorporates the weak force together with the electromagnetic force, has proved to be renormalizable. Also, quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, appears to be renormalizable. However, a renormalizable theory that includes all the fundamental forces, in particular gravity, remains elusive.
I've heard the theory the parties switched sides at some point in the 20th century - though the most often claim is that it happened in the 60's not the 30's.
But Ben Shapiro would dispute that :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Are you talking about the US Civil War? Alt Right President Lincoln freeing those brown people?
Or are you talking about the post Civil War period when the KKK was run by Democrats and opposed by the Alt Right Federal Government?
Brown man dares not go out in public for fear of mostly white lynch mob.