Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #51696 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <noreply@mixnym.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-16 20:21 -0600 |
| Last post | 2018-11-29 20:26 +0000 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 48 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-11-16 20:21 -0600
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-11-17 11:10 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 11:26 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-17 11:53 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-18 21:06 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-18 15:46 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-11-24 09:07 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-11-18 22:27 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-19 08:27 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-19 18:33 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-11-19 21:02 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-11-20 06:59 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2018-11-19 21:58 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2018-11-19 17:27 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2018-11-19 17:37 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-20 10:10 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-11-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2018-11-20 21:31 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2018-11-20 23:14 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-21 06:50 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-21 04:24 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-21 10:56 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2018-11-21 12:22 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-21 13:24 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-21 22:08 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-11-21 23:53 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-24 11:46 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-11-24 13:53 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-24 18:39 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-11-24 15:47 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-25 07:51 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-11-25 16:08 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2018-11-24 15:24 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2018-11-30 11:32 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 05:13 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-11-18 06:23 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-11-19 19:06 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-11-19 21:44 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-11-20 10:19 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> - 2018-11-19 18:44 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2018-11-19 19:00 -0500
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-11-26 20:40 -0800
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-11-20 10:09 +0100
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 07:26 -0800
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-11-29 19:45 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-11-29 20:21 +0000
Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-11-29 20:26 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <psvhsf$nu7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51729 |
On 11/19/2018 2:06 PM, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:23:08 +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > >> And to think Intel was responsible for killing Alpha, then helping foist >> that piece of shit IA64 on us. > > You might like to learn that IA64 is immune to all these attacks > that are plaguing the x86 architecture. > Yeah, too bad it's not immune to sinking .... -- David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 19:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <psviq3$cst$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #51740 |
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote: >On 11/19/2018 2:06 PM, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:23:08 +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >> >>> And to think Intel was responsible for killing Alpha, then helping foist >>> that piece of shit IA64 on us. >> >> You might like to learn that IA64 is immune to all these attacks >> that are plaguing the x86 architecture. >> > >Yeah, too bad it's not immune to sinking .... It's got cache prefetch, it isn't immune to timing exploits at all. Now, it might be -difficult- to manage timing exploits because of the VLIW architecture and the difficulty of knowing which operational part of the instruction you're waiting for. But on the other hand, the icache on the IA64 is constantly being blown out so your opportunities are good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 20:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ptihrm$jc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51741 |
On 11/19/18 4:00 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote: >> On 11/19/2018 2:06 PM, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:23:08 +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: >>> >>>> And to think Intel was responsible for killing Alpha, then helping foist >>>> that piece of shit IA64 on us. >>> >>> You might like to learn that IA64 is immune to all these attacks >>> that are plaguing the x86 architecture. >>> >> >> Yeah, too bad it's not immune to sinking .... > > It's got cache prefetch, it isn't immune to timing exploits at all. Now, it > might be -difficult- to manage timing exploits because of the VLIW > architecture and the difficulty of knowing which operational part of the > instruction you're waiting for. But on the other hand, the icache on the > IA64 is constantly being blown out so your opportunities are good. > --scott > ``And in large part the fixes have been made. <https://www.tomshardware.com/news/stibp-fixes-restore-linux-performance,38148.html> bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-20 10:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <234745c7cf590eebe9d4e55a3cde2b6b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #51729 |
In article <psv1j9$3ej$2@news.albasani.net> Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:23:08 +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: > > > And to think Intel was responsible for killing Alpha, then helping foist > > that piece of shit IA64 on us. > > You might like to learn that IA64 is immune to all these attacks > that are plaguing the x86 architecture. Maybe so, HP did their best to ruin it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12d08314-6ba5-419d-be3d-3c24ecc80ace@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51711 |
On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 5:10:41 AM UTC-5, J.O. Aho wrote: > > And it will run slower in the future > Only if such security fixes are enabled and they will be enabled only by paranoid lunatics. These "vulnerabilities" apply only to virtual machines in a server environment. For a stand-alone workstation they are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Fortunately, Linux developers have the sensibility to make these security fixes entirely optional. Unfortunately, however, most mainstream distros will lazily assume that every Linux installation involves virtual machines in a server environment and therefore, as with systemd, these fixes will be included by default. Linux is good. The mainstream distros are garbage and shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptpfkk$h6v$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #51804 |
On 2018-11-28, fr314159@gmail.com <fr314159@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 5:10:41 AM UTC-5, J.O. Aho wrote: > >> >> And it will run slower in the future >> > > Only if such security fixes are enabled and they will be enabled only > by paranoid lunatics. You're either a fool or a criminal. > These "vulnerabilities" apply only to virtual machines in a server environment. > For a stand-alone workstation they are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. There are javascript exploits, that is these flaws can be exploited on your stand-alone workstation via the web. > Unfortunately, however, most mainstream distros will lazily assume > that every Linux installation involves virtual machines in a server > environment and therefore, as with systemd, these fixes will be included > by default. > > Linux is good. The mainstream distros are garbage and shit. some people are too dumb to own money. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bTXLD.869148$xE.253827@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #51805 |
On 2018-11-29, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > On 2018-11-28, fr314159@gmail.com <fr314159@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 5:10:41 AM UTC-5, J.O. Aho wrote: >> >>> >>> And it will run slower in the future >>> >> >> Only if such security fixes are enabled and they will be enabled only >> by paranoid lunatics. > > You're either a fool or a criminal. New mainstream line of Intel CPU's (9900k and friends) have meltdown,l1tf and spectre v2 patched? > >> These "vulnerabilities" apply only to virtual machines in a server environment. >> For a stand-alone workstation they are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. > > There are javascript exploits, that is these flaws can be exploited on your > stand-alone workstation via the web. Running java script from untrusted sources is always a risk. > >> Unfortunately, however, most mainstream distros will lazily assume >> that every Linux installation involves virtual machines in a server >> environment and therefore, as with systemd, these fixes will be included >> by default. >> >> Linux is good. The mainstream distros are garbage and shit. > > some people are too dumb to own money. He probably uses Linux in VM... > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptpi2c050s@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #51805 |
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:45:24 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > > There are javascript exploits, > Show an actual example. Obviously, you picked up somewhere that a javascript exploit can exist and you swallowed it. But show an actual javascript example that will actually work.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web