Enviado do meu iPhone
On 06/26/2017 03:01 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:30:24PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
The same complaint can be said about the AMD microcode updates.
quite probably, yes. but that doesn't make any crap any better.
Yet, afaik, you use Qubes which recommends Intel and A
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:37:01AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 08:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Other procesors aren't bug-free, they just don't get as many bug fixes.
>
> And the fixes aren't documented publicly at all.
Similar to the time I was affected b
(updated perl script, it now needs the "liblist-moreutils-perl" package)
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> > processors code-named "Skylake" a
* Ben Hutchings:
> On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 08:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:19:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Apparently, Intel had indeed found the issue, *documented it* (see
>> > below) and *fixed it*. There was no direct feedback to t
(updates, hopefully the last ones...)
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Fast-forward a few months, and Mark Shinwell noticed the mention of a
> possible fix for a microcode defect with unknown hit-ratio in the
> intel-microcode package changelog. He matched it to the issue
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 08:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:19:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> [...]
> > Apparently, Intel had indeed found the issue, *documented it* (see
> > below) and *fixed it*. There was no direct feedback to the OCaml
> > people, so
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 06:14:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:08:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Yet "don't buy anything" is not a good advice.
Have we ruled out all ARM vendors yet? :)
Are we still talknig about general-purpose computers?
In 2017? Sure
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:08:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Yet "don't buy anything" is not a good advice.
> Have we ruled out all ARM vendors yet? :)
Are we still talknig about general-purpose computers?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
Yet "don't buy anything" is not a good advice.
Have we ruled out all ARM vendors yet? :)
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:01:51PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > The same complaint can be said about the AMD microcode updates.
> quite probably, yes. but that doesn't make any crap any better.
Yet "don't buy anything" is not a good advice.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:30:24PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> The same complaint can be said about the AMD microcode updates.
quite probably, yes. but that doesn't make any crap any better.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Am Montag, den 26.06.2017, 08:34 + schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:19:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> wrote:
> [...]
> > Apparently, Intel had indeed found the issue, *documented it* (see
> > below) and *fixed it*. There was no direct feedback to the OCaml
> > peo
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:39:10AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As far as I know, so far OCaml is the only one that was verified to be
> caused by the SKL150 erratum.
[...]
thanks for providing these details.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatu
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Are there any other public bug reports which got fixed by this, or is the
> ocaml issue the only known issue which gets fixed by installing this microcode
> update?
As far as I know, so far OCaml is the only one that was verified to be
caused by the SKL1
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:51:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > but YOU MUST INSTALL THIS BINARY BLOB
> How is it worse than the blobs already in your hardware?
it opens the door for targeted attacks.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:34:57AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> but YOU MUST INSTALL THIS BINARY BLOB
How is it worse than the blobs already in your hardware?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:19:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
[...]
> Apparently, Intel had indeed found the issue, *documented it* (see
> below) and *fixed it*. There was no direct feedback to the OCaml
> people, so they only found about it later.
[...]
> We do not have enough info
Minor update on the issue:
The check command provided in the advisory to test for hyper-threading
doesn't work: it will always report hyper-theading as enabled. A better
command is provided below.
Note: this also means the perl script will give some false-positives.
I apologise for the inconveni
For the record: the email with the perl script doesn't contain malware.
The "malware" alert came from an extremely badly configured system that
violates every best practice in the field: it sends email to every
original recipient (and not just to local users), and it FORGES its
headers to look lik
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
> 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and
> HEDT), their related ser
This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and
HEDT), their related server processors (such as Xeon v5 and Xeon v6), as
well as select
22 matches
Mail list logo
