On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:52:36 +0100 David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: >Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf-ZCLZIpdjs0kJGwgDXS7ZQA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >writes: > >> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 15:29:27 +0000, Pablo Fernandez wrote: >>>El sáb., 13 ene. 2018 13:58, Thomas Pfundt escribió: >>>> However, this site doesn't list your Celeron G as vulnerable: >>>> https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr >>>> Do you even need to concern with the patch and performance at this >>>> point? >> >> That is interesting news. I'll forward this, since actually it's >> claimed that all x86 CPUs since the Pentium Pro from 1995 suffer from >> this issue. >> >> Does anybody know how to value this information from Intel? > >The vulnerability is speculative execution in connection with memory >fetch. Basically, you make a conditional indirect branch via the >location you want to read out with the condition being later figured out >as false. The execution is abandoned at that time, but the indirect >branch has invalidated previous contents of the cache depending on the >abandoned target. Now you use timing registers in connection with >accesses in order to figure out just where the cache is no longer valid. > >Since kernel and user processes generally share the same virtual address >space for efficiency reasons (though obviously not the same >permissions)... > >Basically, I'd be surprised about exceptions. > Bearing in mind Intel's past behaviour, I regard missing entries in that list as simply meaning those CPUs have not been tested, not that they in the clear. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
