Monday, January 22nd 2018

Intel Announces Root Cause of Meltdown, Spectre Patch Reboot Issue Identified

Intel has finally come around towards reporting on the state of the reboot issues that have been plaguing Intel systems ever since the company started rolling out patches to customers. These patches, which aimed to mitigate security vulnerabilities present in Intel's chips, ended up causing a whole slew of other problems for Intel CPU deployment managers. As a result of Intel's investigation, the company has ascertained that there were, in fact, problems with the patch implementation, and is now changing its guidelines: where before users were encouraged to apply any issued updates as soon as possible, the company now states that "OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions, as they may introduce higher than expected reboots and other unpredictable system behavior." A full transcription of the Intel press release follows.
"As we start the week, I want to provide an update on the reboot issues we reported Jan. 11. We have now identified the root cause for Broadwell and Haswell platforms, and made good progress in developing a solution to address it. Over the weekend, we began rolling out an early version of the updated solution to industry partners for testing, and we will make a final release available once that testing has been completed. Based on this, we are updating our guidance for customers and partners:
  • We recommend that OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions, as they may introduce higher than expected reboots and other unpredictable system behavior. For the full list of platforms, see the Intel.com Security Center site.
  • We ask that our industry partners focus efforts on testing early versions of the updated solution so we can accelerate its release. We expect to share more details on timing later this week.
  • We continue to urge all customers to vigilantly maintain security best practice and for consumers to keep systems up-to-date.
I apologize for any disruption this change in guidance may cause. The security of our products is critical for Intel, our customers and partners, and for me, personally. I assure you we are working around the clock to ensure we are addressing these issues. I will keep you updated as we learn more and thank you for your patience." Sources: Intel NewsRoom Reboot Issues, Intel newsRoom Udpated Guidance
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Intel Announces Root Cause of Meltdown, Spectre Patch Reboot Issue Identified

#2
pigulici
So in short : "the patch used until now it is broken, don't used, wait until we have another one"; glad I blocked and didn't do any update , even for bios, starting this month, the common sense it is to wait and see...
Posted on Reply
#3
AsRock
TPU addict
Classic
The security of our products is critical for Intel
If that was the case it would of been fixed many years ago.
Posted on Reply
#4
theoneandonlymrk
"pigulici said:
So in short : "the patch used until now it is broken, don't used, wait until we have another one"; glad I blocked and didn't do any update , even for bios, starting this month, the common sense it is to wait and see...
Unless you are a consumer de general public ,in which case patch yo shit even if it f@@ks yo shit ????
What the actual f###

Im on an Amd Fx with all the latest patches and im seeing a lot of system hangs atm maybe unconnected since i mess with sliders and tune settings like theirs a prize involved but I'm just carrying on as Normal to be fair which to me makes more hangs someone elses fault:)
Posted on Reply
#5
R0H1T
Well Intel's spinning their usual BS & they don't seem intent on fixing spectre anytime soon ~
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:28 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-21 at 11:34 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > All of this is pure garbage.
> >
> > Is Intel really planning on making this shit architectural? Has
> > anybody talked to them and told them they are f*cking insane?
> >
> > Please, any Intel engineers here - talk to your managers.
>
> If the alternative was a two-decade product recall and giving everyone
> free CPUs, I'm not sure it was entirely insane.


You seem to have bought into the cool-aid. Please add a healthy dose
of critical thinking. Because this isn't the kind of cool-aid that
makes for a fun trip with pretty pictures. This is the kind that melts
your brain.


> Certainly it's a nasty hack, but hey â the world was on fire and in the
> end we didn't have to just turn the datacentres off and go back to goat
> farming, so it's not all bad.


It's not that it's a nasty hack. It's much worse than that.

> As a hack for existing CPUs, it's just about tolerable â as long as it
> can die entirely by the next generation.


That's part of the big problem here. The speculation control cpuid
stuff shows that Intel actually seems to plan on doing the right thing
for meltdown (the main question being _when_). Which is not a huge
surprise, since it should be easy to fix, and it's a really honking
big hole to drive through. Not doing the right thing for meltdown
would be completely unacceptable.


So the IBRS garbage implies that Intel is _not_ planning on doing the
right thing for the indirect branch speculation.


Honestly, that's completely unacceptable too.

> So the part is I think is odd is the IBRS_ALL feature, where a future
> CPU will advertise "I am able to be not broken" and then you have to
> set the IBRS bit once at boot time to *ask* it not to be broken. That
> part is weird, because it ought to have been treated like the RDCL_NO
> bit â just "you don't have to worry any more, it got better".


It's not "weird" at all. It's very much part of the whole "this is
complete garbage" issue.


The whole IBRS_ALL feature to me very clearly says "Intel is not
serious about this, we'll have a ugly hack that will be so expensive
that we don't want to enable it by default, because that would look
bad in benchmarks".


So instead they try to push the garbage down to us. And they are doing
it entirely wrong, even from a technical standpoint.


I'm sure there is some lawyer there who says "we'll have to go through
motions to protect against a lawsuit". But legal reasons do not make
for good technology, or good patches that I should apply.


> We do need the IBPB feature to complete the protection that retpoline
> gives us â it's that or rebuild all of userspace with retpoline.


BULLSHIT.

Have you _looked_ at the patches you are talking about? You should
have - several of them bear your name.


The patches do things like add the garbage MSR writes to the kernel
entry/exit points. That's insane. That says "we're trying to protect
the kernel". We already have retpoline there, with less overhead.


So somebody isn't telling the truth here. Somebody is pushing complete
garbage for unclear reasons. Sorry for having to point that out.


If this was about flushing the BTB at actual context switches between
different users, I'd believe you. But that's not at all what the
patches do.


As it is, the patches are COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE.

They do literally insane things. They do things that do not make
sense. That makes all your arguments questionable and suspicious. The
patches do things that are not sane.


WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON?

And that's actually ignoring the much _worse_ issue, namely that the
whole hardware interface is literally mis-designed by morons.


It's mis-designed for two major reasons:

- the "the interface implies Intel will never fix it" reason.

See the difference between IBRS_ALL and RDCL_NO. One implies Intel
will fix something. The other does not.


Do you really think that is acceptable?

- the "there is no performance indicator".

The whole point of having cpuid and flags from the
microarchitecture is that we can use those to make decisions.


But since we already know that the IBRS overhead is <i>huge</i> on
existing hardware, all those hardware capability bits are just
complete and utter garbage. Nobody sane will use them, since the cost
is too damn high. So you end up having to look at "which CPU stepping
is this" anyway.


I think we need something better than this garbage.

Linus
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1801.2/04628.html

It's probably because, as Linus hinted, the performance hit is huge & even then the (software) fix may not be 100% secure.
Posted on Reply
#6
Katanai
"OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions, as they may introduce higher than expected reboots and other unpredictable system behavior."

It seems that my point of view from the start of all this, not downloading beta software created in a panic and waiting for the final patch, was right. A lot of people on this forum criticized me for saying that is the way to go. I dare anyone, now after even Intel says you should uninstall the cancer patch they created, to tell me that I was wrong. Are there still any takers out there?
Posted on Reply
#7
trparky
"R0H1T said:
Well Intel's spinning their usual BS & they don't seem intent on fixing spectre anytime soon ~
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1801.2/04628.html

It's probably because, as Linus hinted, the performance hit is huge & even then the (software) fix may not be 100% secure.
Yeah, because they'd actually have to do some work to improve their products which of course we all know they don't want to do. They instead want to sit back, rake in the cash and the while screw us over and over because well... just because. What? Did you expect anything else? We're Intel remember!

Good God, it's a damn good thing that AMD has come back from behind because damn if I ever buy another Intel chip after this garbage that Intel has just handed us. #IntelFail #AMDFTW
Posted on Reply
#8
jsfitz54
"Katanai said:
"OEMs, cloud service providers, system manufacturers, software vendors and end users stop deployment of current versions, as they may introduce higher than expected reboots and other unpredictable system behavior."

It seems that my point of view from the start of all this, not downloading beta software created in a panic and waiting for the final patch, was right. A lot of people on this forum criticized me for saying that is the way to go. I dare anyone, now after even Intel says you should uninstall the cancer patch they created, to tell me that I was wrong. Are there still any takers out there?
Question: Can the Patch be undone, for those that had it auto applied? (((OR))) Will it stay in place for some reason and leave behind remnants?
Posted on Reply
#9
Katanai
"jsfitz54 said:
Question: Can the Patch be undone, for those that had it auto applied? (((OR))) Will it stay in place for some reason and leave behind remnants?
Any Windows update can be uninstalled without any negative repercussions as far as I know. If we are talking about a BIOS update, simply flashing the previous one should do the job. As for CPU firmware, I dunno how that works...
Posted on Reply
#10
lexluthermiester
"AsRock said:
If that was the case it would of been fixed many years ago.
If they'd known about it, they likely would have redesigned the hardware to fix it as they're doing now. It actually would have been better if all of these problems would have been discovered before the release of the Core series of CPU's.
Posted on Reply
#12
Arctucas
I wondered about the microcode being reversible as well.

Does anyone know of a list of the various processor microcode numbers that are affected?

My 6700K is currently on C2.
Posted on Reply
#13
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I've applied the microcode update to my 6700K mobo and still have not encountered any issues.
Posted on Reply
#14
AsRock
TPU addict
"lexluthermiester said:
If they'd known about it, they likely would have redesigned the hardware to fix it as they're doing now. It actually would have been better if all of these problems would have been discovered before the release of the Core series of CPU's.
I don't believe that for a second, they knew and didn't due to performance loss.
Posted on Reply
#15
mcraygsx
"lexluthermiester said:
If they'd known about it, they likely would have redesigned the hardware to fix it as they're doing now. It actually would have been better if all of these problems would have been discovered before the release of the Core series of CPU's.
CPU does have a firmware of a sorts also known as microcode update. Intel distribute the microcode to vendors and they delivery microcode update as a part of BIOS update.
Posted on Reply
#16
kn00tcn
"Katanai said:
It seems that my point of view from the start of all this, not downloading beta software created in a panic and waiting for the final patch, was right. A lot of people on this forum criticized me for saying that is the way to go. I dare anyone, now after even Intel says you should uninstall the cancer patch they created, to tell me that I was wrong. Are there still any takers out there?
"my point of view", "i was right", "i dare", "cancer", "tell me i was wrong", "i challenge others"

is this an esports match? a more humble attitude would make the points more clear, otherwise it's really hard to care to listen through the filler during an important topic such as security that is out of the user's control... nobody needs to know how much of a victim you were, not everyone read the previous threads

linus torvalds very recently was infuriated (with F bombs) about the intel 'garbage' being requested into the linux kernel, this isnt something to boast about, it's a very disappointing situation...

plus, controlling a few windows updates doesnt mean you're controlling the intial OS state, or the browsers losing performance, or not being able to undo specific items from a service pack, etc
Posted on Reply
#17
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
"mcraygsx said:
Intel distribute the microcode to vendors and they delivery microcode update as a part of BIOS update.
Microcode updates don't need to happen through the BIOS.
code:
$ apt list --upgradable intel-microcode
Listing... Done
intel-microcode/artful-updates,artful-security 3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu17.10.1 amd64 [upgradable from: 3.20180108.0~ubuntu17.10.1]

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/intel-microcode/3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu17.10.1
intel-microcode (3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu17.10.1) artful-security; urgency=medium

* Revert to 20170707 version of microcode because of regressions on
certain hardware. (LP: #1742933)

-- Marc Deslauriers <email address hidden> Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:16:40 -0500
If I'm reading this correctly, it is telling me that microcode was reverted back to the version from July last year because this regression was so bad, that it's almost like Intel conceding that their fix was worse than the security hole it was attempting to patch. :fear:
Posted on Reply
#18
kn00tcn
"Aquinus said:
If I'm reading this correctly, it is telling me that microcode was reverted back to the version from July last year because this regression was so bad, that it's almost like Intel conceding that their fix was worse than the security hole it was attempting to patch. :fear:
it's not 'so bad', it either has an issue or it doesnt, it's also a single distro's point of reference

dont think about the date, microcode isnt supposed to have updates every month
Posted on Reply
#19
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
"kn00tcn said:
dont think about the date, microcode isnt supposed to have updates every month
Yet, this is update #2 this month.
"kn00tcn said:
it's not 'so bad', it either has an issue or it doesnt, it's also a single distro's point of reference
Undoing the patch for meltdown because it can crash certain systems? I'm not sure how that qualifies as "not so bad." :laugh:

Also:
Debian distributes each individual Intel microcode update unmodified, as downloaded from Intel.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/artful/+source/intel-microcode/+copyright
Posted on Reply
#20
lexluthermiester
"AsRock said:
they knew and didn't due to performance loss.
There is no evidence of that and Intel isn't the only company effected. Meltdown yes, but the many variants of Spectre? No. And for more than two decades? Come on, that would have to be the best kept secret in history..
Posted on Reply
#21
OSdevr
"kn00tcn said:
it's not 'so bad', it either has an issue or it doesnt, it's also a single distro's point of reference

dont think about the date, microcode isnt supposed to have updates every month
If Ubuntu was a server distro I might understand pulling the update for 'mission critical' reliability reasons but it's a desktop distro, and as the most popular Linux distro (and one which I personally use) others are likely to follow suit. There are a lot of distros based on Ubuntu, it's not some no name.

"AsRock said:
I don't believe that for a second, they knew and didn't due to performance loss.
There would be little performance loss if done in hardware compared to this software kludge.
Posted on Reply
#23
Katanai
"kn00tcn said:
"my point of view", "i was right", "i dare", "cancer", "tell me i was wrong", "i challenge others"

is this an esports match? a more humble attitude would make the points more clear, otherwise it's really hard to care to listen through the filler during an important topic such as security that is out of the user's control... nobody needs to know how much of a victim you were, not everyone read the previous threads

linus torvalds very recently was infuriated (with F bombs) about the intel 'garbage' being requested into the linux kernel, this isnt something to boast about, it's a very disappointing situation...

plus, controlling a few windows updates doesnt mean you're controlling the intial OS state, or the browsers losing performance, or not being able to undo specific items from a service pack, etc
My message was not intended for you. I am not boasting about anything. This was my original post on this forum:

"Katanai said:
I will not install anything on my computer that degrades performance. For Windows 7 the update is KB4056894 I have already hidden it and will never install it...
As you can see I have just said what I am going to do and written the specific windows update number so that maybe other people who want to do the same thing know which one it is. To this message that was meant to maybe help other people the replies I got where:

"Assimilator said:
Aren't you the badass. Betting your next post will be "OMG my pc got exploited because of meltdown intel is teh evil no of course it's not my fault that i didn't install the mitigation because i'm a moron".
"R-T-B said:

No one here is a moron. Not installing these updates is foolish in most instances however.
"TheinsanegamerN said:
Part of the reason this vulnerability is so dangerous is people like you that leave their systems vulnerable. By the time you hear about widespread exploits, it will likely be too late for you.
As you can see, I have been called a moron, a fool, people like me are dangerous etc. I refuse to be humble in front of such people, who should be eating their words right now. I can tell you to rest assured that my Operating System is fully under my control, my browser is not losing any performance and if I have to undo a specific item from a service pack I'll find a way to do it. Nothing about this situation was out of a user's control, anyone could have chosen not to take part in it. Yet some people on this forum, when such an alternative was presented to them, started throwing stones and insults, trying to drag everyone down with them...
Posted on Reply
#24
OSdevr
"Aquinus said:
"If Ubuntu was a server distro"? It's only like, the most widespread Linux server distro
Ubuntu Server is. It is distinct from Ubuntu Desktop.
Posted on Reply
#25
R-T-B
"Katanai said:
As you can see, I have been called a moron, a fool, people like me are dangerous etc
For my part, I didn't call you a fool. I said your actions were foolish. There is a very big difference.
Posted on Reply
#26
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
"jsfitz54 said:
Question: Can the Patch be undone, for those that had it auto applied? (((OR))) Will it stay in place for some reason and leave behind remnants?
I think technically it can, because for me it repeatedly failed at the 85% or so point, then went through a big production of rolling me back.
Posted on Reply
#27
kn00tcn
"Aquinus said:
Yet, this is update #2 this month.

Undoing the patch for meltdown because it can crash certain systems? I'm not sure how that qualifies as "not so bad." :laugh:
...update #2 of the same major topic, when have there been multiple quick microcode updates PREVIOUSLY that didnt align to product launches?

crashes are binary, so bad implies there is some amount of bad that can be accepted, but this is 'some reports came in so ctrl+z', ubuntu recently had some laptop firmware losing issue that no other distro had, so sometimes it's not even the microcode's problem but what the distro was trying to do (edit: was update #1 this or was it still meltdown?)

"OSdevr said:
If Ubuntu was a server distro I might understand pulling the update for 'mission critical' reliability reasons but it's a desktop distro, and as the most popular Linux distro (and one which I personally use) others are likely to follow suit. There are a lot of distros based on Ubuntu, it's not some no name.
ubuntu dropped their unity work & switched to gnome made by red hat, already on systemd made by red hat, people dont 'follow' ubuntu, they follow upstream changes that may or may not match what ubuntu does (if it isnt obvious, i dont like ubuntu or the way some packages are handled)

"Katanai said:
As you can see, I have been called a moron, a fool, people like me are dangerous etc. I refuse to be humble in front of such people, who should be eating their words right now. I can tell you to rest assured that my Operating System is fully under my control, my browser is not losing any performance
who cares what a few people said on some forum? at a subconscious level it's boasting about your setup so it adds too much filler text (yes, ironically i want an evolved reaction from you even though we have nothing to do with each other & nobody cares tomorrow... if anything, not feeling the need to be defensive will bring you peace while the others stay stressed, letting go of an argument is applicable to both sides not just the attacker (disclosure: i saw your old posts the first time though it's good that i had a few days to think about them more & reread them today))

your browser is losing performance because they loosened a certain timer latency, not that it will be noticable, neither is the touted 30% loss that people keep reposting... that loss is extremely specific & probably most obvious on an SSD where speeds are crazy high, 0.1s to 0.5sec is a multi hundred percent loss, but still less than a second, so i dont avoid updates without measuring or at least noticing losses for myself (even if they exist, in a game example, 90 to 85 fps is irrelevant, winxp might be faster sometimes, but not enough to matter, deferring updates could be in the same situation)

edit: by the way, work has been done since the summer, but i guess a lot of rushing was going on in january
Posted on Reply
#28
Katanai
"R-T-B said:
For my part, I didn't call you a fool. I said your actions were foolish. There is a very big difference.
Let me teach you something today. This is the definition of foolish: "lacking good sense or judgement; unwise."

Now please tell me which one of us was the one acting foolish. Me, using my judgement to determine that it would be wiser to wait until this is sorted out? Or you, downloading and deploying untested beta software designed to gimp CPU's, that now even the ones who made it say it would be better to uninstall? It's one thing to call someones actions foolish and then falsely pretend that the actions of someone doesn't say anything about his character and somehow his actions are separated from him and you can belittle them at your own leisure without insulting him by one bit. It's something else though when your own actions fall under the exact definition of the words you projected on someone else while his are the exact opposite. This says a lot about the character of a person who goes out and projects his own flaws unto others. Please, in the future, instead of worrying about what other people do and judging their actions, take some time out and think better about yours. Use the time you would waste trying to judge others to improve yourself, because it seems that you really need it. This advice goes out to [USER=65960]kn00tcn[/USER] too because he, as any good Canadian does, seems to be more interested in other's people's business than his own...
Posted on Reply
#29
R-T-B
"Katanai said:
It's one thing to call someones actions foolish and then falsely pretend that the actions of someone doesn't say anything about his character and somehow his actions are separated from him and you can belittle them at your own leisure without insulting him by one bit.
Everyone makes foolish decisions at some point. This does not make them fools. The definition actually says:

(of a person or action) lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.

Note the bold.

Look, if you want to take offense, I can't stop you. I can only state my intent and hope for the best.

The rest of your post is full of unnecesary implications that I feel would be counterproductive to reply to.
Posted on Reply
#30
Katanai
"R-T-B said:
Everyone makes foolish decisions at some point. This does not make them fools.
Here you are again projecting your own flaws unto others. This time on the whole humanity. You have made a mistake and were called out for it. What have you learned from this? Maybe try to better yourself? No! Everyone makes mistakes and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what you are telling me right now and that's why I think you will never learn.

"R-T-B said:

Look, if you want to take offense, I can't stop you. I can only state my intent and hope for the best.
You go on by refusing to take any responsibility for your own actions. You said something that someone else found offensive. Of course it's not your fault, other people are taking offense and running away with it and you can't stop them. Let me tell you something, if you spill coffee on someone and he jumps, although you didn't mean to do that, you say you are sorry. If you say something and someone is offended by it, although that was not your intention, you don't have to say sorry but at least you say something like: I didn't mean to offend. There, I've showed you how you can stop people from taking offense. Because the problem here is that you don't even "state your intent" like you say. When you took sides with someone that called me a moron and you called my choice of action foolish what was your intention? To amuse me? To save the planet?

"R-T-B said:

The rest of your post is full of unnecesary implications that I feel would be counterproductive to reply to.
The rest of my post, like this one right here, is filled with truth. I feel pity for anyone that describes truth as "unnecessary implications" and refuses to confront it. I repeat my advice to you: spend some time thinking about your behavior and how your actions impact and are perceived by those around you. Try to confront your own problems and resolve them yourself instead of projecting them unto others. As long as you go around making mistakes and then thinking: well everybody does that, you will not be able to truly advance...
Posted on Reply
#31
R-T-B
This whole discussion frankly says a lot more about you than me.

You seem a very angry person. For that reason, I'm out.
Posted on Reply
#32
Katanai
"R-T-B said:
This whole discussion frankly says a lot more about you than me.

You seem a very angry person. For that reason, I'm out.
Of course yet again it's someone else's fault. Although nothing in my discourse was in any way or form uncivilized and could have been perceived as angry, once again you project something from inside yourself on someone else. Maybe what I've said has made you angry so in your head I'm the angry one now. Because that's what you do and sadly it seems will continue to do into the future. It seems there's nothing I can do to change that so: Bye! Enjoy your gimped CPU! :D
Posted on Reply
#33
R-T-B
"Katanai said:
Of course yet again it's someone else's fault.
No, I don't think it's anyones fault. I think it's just a sucky situation I don't want to be a part of.

I'm sorry I made you mad. It wasn't my intention but it is what happened. Truth be told, I don't feel too guilty about it as it seems you are abusing definitions to make yourself angry and I never really intended insult, so what more can I do but say "sorry, didn't mean to make you mad bro?" I can't help but infer that that may mean you are an angry person, if you aren't and are thinking of rainbows right now, please be pleased to know I am happy for you.

Good day.
Posted on Reply
#35
Katanai
"R-T-B said:
No, I don't think it's anyones fault. I think it's just a sucky situation I don't want to be a part of.

I'm sorry I made you mad. It wasn't my intention but it is what happened. Truth be told, I don't feel too guilty about it as it seems you are abusing definitions to make yourself angry and I never really intended insult, so what more can I do but say "sorry, didn't mean to make you mad bro?" I can't help but infer that that may mean you are an angry person, if you aren't and are thinking of rainbows right now, please be pleased to know I am happy for you.

Good day.
When you say "I'm out" and then you come back again that only means one thing: the other person is making you angry. It also means that you are not a man of your word but that's another story. Your every action in this thread proves my words are true and everyone can see it. This article itself under which we are commenting here proves that I was right from the start and you were utterly wrong. I have no reason to be angry, quite the contrary, you have all the reasons in the world. If it wasn't clear from the smiley I posted in my message, I am actually smiling while typing this. :laugh: I'm having an argument with someone on a forum called techpowerup that instead of trying to get more performance out of his CPU used software to gimp it and advised me to do so too so we can save the planet together. Now the performance charts come out so he can see how much he gimped it and he likes it. :laugh: Here, just so you can see I'm not mad at you, I will try to teach you one more thing. This is how it's done son: School session is over. Peace, I'm out!
Posted on Reply
#36
R-T-B
I came back because you were in my notification hotbar, and thought maybe the words "I'm sorry" should be uttered whether I saw the damage or not.

So I'm sorry. I did not mean to hurt your feelings by telling you a security patch may be important.

I'm glad you are happy. Enjoy your 5-10% performance edge and be careful with that security hole.

By the way, this microcode patch was not deployed to Ryzen CPUs, which I am using. So... yeah. I've really got no point except to offer my advice and feelings on best practices. Yes, I feel you are being foolish still. I am sorry that offends you but my thoughts are my own.
Posted on Reply
#37
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
Remain on topic or reply bans will be issued. Use the ignore functionality, it's proper good like.
Posted on Reply
#38
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
"OSdevr said:
Ubuntu Server is. It is distinct from Ubuntu Desktop.
Um, what? Maybe you can explain to me exactly what those differences are because Ubuntu Desktop 17.10 and Ubuntu Server 17.10 use the same software packages, the same kernels, the same drivers, etc. Some of the kernels used to be distinguished but, even that isn't the case anymore. Example:
My tower (running Ubuntu "Desktop" 17.10):
code:
$ uname -a
Linux kratos 4.13.0-31-generic #34-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 19 16:34:46 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

...and the tower in the attic crunching with Ubuntu "Server" 17.10:
code:
$ uname -a
Linux smite 4.13.0-16-generic #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 11 18:35:14 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

So, other than the fact that I haven't updated Smite in a while, they're using the same kernel and the same packages, yet one is "desktop" and the other is "server". The only difference is what packages are installed when the OS was installed for the first time but, I can install Ubuntu Server, run "sudo apt install ubuntu-desktop" and there is literally no difference from Ubuntu Desktop. In fact, every package is addative, it doesn't remove packages when going to desktop, so what gets installed on server is just a subset of what gets installed on desktop. Likewise, if I did a desktop installation and removed just about every package for anything GUI-related and that Ubuntu Desktop will be in [roughly] a state that is the same as a Ubuntu Server installation (uninstalling packages is never as clean as never installing them.)

Either way, Ubuntu Server is not distinct from Ubuntu Desktop, the only difference is what you start with. Even the one thing that used to be different, isn't anymore (the kernel.) Even the /etc/apt/sources.list are practically identical for all Ubuntu apt repos. So, I'm calling foul. There is a reason why the alternative installer doesn't exist anymore, because that's the GUI-less server installer. It's really not any different. In fact, if you want a minimal or mimimal VM installation, desktop or not, you use the server installer but, there is legit no difference between the end result other than what packages are there after installation but, I can assure you that every package in a base server installation is the same as desktop when you talk about Ubuntu's apt repos.
Posted on Reply
#39
OSdevr
"Aquinus said:
Um, what? Maybe you can explain to me exactly what those differences are because Ubuntu Desktop 17.10 and Ubuntu Server 17.10 use the same software packages, the same kernels, the same drivers, etc. Some of the kernels used to be distinguished but, even that isn't the case anymore. Example:
My tower (running Ubuntu "Desktop" 17.10):
code:
$ uname -a
Linux kratos 4.13.0-31-generic #34-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 19 16:34:46 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

...and the tower in the attic crunching with Ubuntu "Server" 17.10:
code:
$ uname -a
Linux smite 4.13.0-16-generic #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 11 18:35:14 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

So, other than the fact that I haven't updated Smite in a while, they're using the same kernel and the same packages, yet one is "desktop" and the other is "server". The only difference is what packages are installed when the OS was installed for the first time but, I can install Ubuntu Server, run "sudo apt install ubuntu-desktop" and there is literally no difference from Ubuntu Desktop. In fact, every package is addative, it doesn't remove packages when going to desktop, so what gets installed on server is just a subset of what gets installed on desktop. Likewise, if I did a desktop installation and removed just about every package for anything GUI-related and that Ubuntu Desktop will be in [roughly] a state that is the same as a Ubuntu Server installation (uninstalling packages is never as clean as never installing them.)

Either way, Ubuntu Server is not distinct from Ubuntu Desktop, the only difference is what you start with. Even the one thing that used to be different, isn't anymore (the kernel.) Even the /etc/apt/sources.list are practically identical for all Ubuntu apt repos. So, I'm calling foul. There is a reason why the alternative installer doesn't exist anymore, because that's the GUI-less server installer. It's really not any different. In fact, if you want a minimal or mimimal VM installation, desktop or not, you use the server installer but, there is legit no difference between the end result other than what packages are there after installation but, I can assure you that every package in a base server installation is the same as desktop when you talk about Ubuntu's apt repos.
It appears you are correct. My mistake.
Posted on Reply
#40
ExV6k
I might be just a little bit off-topic, but what about Sandy Bridge? Did intel update those chips and if so, is it safe to assume they're not affected by this random rebooting issue?
Also, I've read somewhere that the first microcode update caused some chips (specifically Haswell and Broadwell?) to report "internal errors" on HWInfo64, can anyone with an updated microcode confirm this, please?
Posted on Reply
#41
Arctucas
"FordGT90Concept said:
I've applied the microcode update to my 6700K mobo and still have not encountered any issues.
Neither have I, nor any significant slowdown.

I was simply wondering if there were different microcodes for different processors that perhaps had different effects?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment