Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #59830

Re: Intel Vulnerability

From "Torben Schou Jensen" <tsj@swampthing.dk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.kernel
Subject Re: Intel Vulnerability
Date 2018-01-05 09:30 +0100
Message-ID <v4vy1-18H-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <v4lfj-2H8-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <v4lfj-2H8-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <v4ush-v8-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <v4ush-v8-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <v4uVj-FD-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Ok, so x86_64_BUG_CPU_INSECURE will be optional in kernel config.

As I read Meltdown is primary a security risk on server farms where
multiple customers use same CPU.

If I have my own private server on own hardware, and thereby have full
control over software in use, then I might get a performance boost by not
using x86_64_BUG_CPU_INSECURE and thereby use full standard speculative
execution.

Brgds
Torben

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Intel Vulnerability Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> - 2018-01-04 22:30 +0100
  Re: Intel Vulnerability Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> - 2018-01-05 08:20 +0100
    Re: Intel Vulnerability Ozgur <ozgur@goosey.org> - 2018-01-05 08:50 +0100
      Re: Intel Vulnerability maximilian attems <maks@stro.at> - 2018-01-05 09:30 +0100
        Re: Intel Vulnerability Ozgur <ozgur@goosey.org> - 2018-01-05 09:40 +0100
      Re: Intel Vulnerability "Torben Schou Jensen" <tsj@swampthing.dk> - 2018-01-05 09:30 +0100
  Re: Intel Vulnerability Ozgur <ozgur@goosey.org> - 2018-01-05 08:40 +0100

csiph-web