Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Thu 20 Sep 2018, 08:25
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
Intel/Linux 20% slowdown
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 4 [59 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
rufwoof

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 2536

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 05:08    Post subject:  Intel/Linux 20% slowdown  

Linux (and Windows) Intel set to get 20% slower

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
Quote:
A fundamental design flaw in Intel's processor chips has forced a significant redesign of the Linux and Windows kernels to defang the chip-level security bug.

AMD/Unix (OpenBSD) here Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sailor Enceladus

Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 1540

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 10:36    Post subject:  

Quote:
the flaw is in the Intel x86-64 hardware

Oh good. My Intel cpu is 32-bit Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
fabrice_035


Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 471

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 12:12    Post subject:  

bad new!

I try with intel tool detection vulnerability

Code:


Application Version: 1.0.0.152
Scan date: 2018-01-03 16:08:00 GMT

*** Host Computer Information ***
Name: puppypc225xx
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Model: Studio XPS 1640
Processor Name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     P8600  @ 2.40GHz
OS Version:    (3.14.79)

*** Risk Assessment ***
Detection Error: This system may be vulnerable,
  either the Intel(R) MEI/TXEI driver is not installed
  (available from your system manufacturer)
  or the system manufacturer does not permit access
  to the ME/TXE from the host driver.

For more information refer to the INTEL-SA-00086 Detection Tool Guide or the
  Intel Security Advisory Intel-SA-00086 at the following link:
  https://www.intel.com/sa-00086-support





https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150?v=t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
fabrice_035


Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 471

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 14:48    Post subject:  

The are new performance after patch :
snapshot-2.png
 Description   
 Filesize   35.69 KB
 Viewed   797 Time(s)

snapshot-2.png

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sage

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 5409
Location: GB

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 15:14    Post subject:  

Yes, the WIntel cartel scores again! If you weren't at least a late teenager in the late end of the 1980's, you may be unaware that Intel has consistently screwed up for three decades? Always with the cooperation of their $$$-sapping companions in Redmond, themselves guilty felons by the USDoJ.
Nothing, but nothing, has stopped the punters from snapping up their cr*p, particularly in their home nation which has had other more successful fabricators, some of which were sent to the wall by this misguided bunch of greedy capitalists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
8Geee


Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 1668
Location: N.E. USA

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 17:59    Post subject:  

I find it disturbing that Intel denies improper programming of its CPU. Basically, Intel says their chips have the acceleration flaw, and its due to trying to predict the next call to HW/SW/Graphics. After all it IS unknown, and the CPU is looking for a performance edge over its rival.

IMHO not only do desktop/laptop CPU's have this "flaw" all smartphones definately have it, and HERE is where other vendors are at risk... ARM especially, since it farms some work to Intel.

Well, thats Intel Management Engine, and now predictive (ahem, accelerated) processing.

BTW, now is a good time to check your browser's predictive behavior... things like "auto-complete", for example.

Regards
8Geee

_________________
Linux user #498913

Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
belham2

Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1534

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 18:38    Post subject: AMD is caught up by processor gobblins too  

....Better re-think those thoughts that AMD is not affected by processor gobblins peaking their heads up. It sort of stinks that both AMD and Intel, it appears, have known about their specific cpu vulnerabilities for some time and have chosen to do nothing. There is no other explanation as there is NO excuse in any universe for not knowing about possible bypasses of "memory isolation mechanisms". Damn, this behavior almost makes Microsoft look saintly all these decades releasing OSes with full knowledge they all were (and still are) vulnerable.

http://www.securityweek.com/intel-amd-chip-vulnerabilities-put-billions-devices-risk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sky Aisling


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Posts: 1200
Location: Port Townsend, WA. USA

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 18:42    Post subject: Intel/Linux 20% slowdown
Subject description: Another Article
 

Here's another article about the 'holey' chip. Smile

https://discuss.howtogeek.com/t/a-huge-intel-security-hole-could-slow-down-your-pc-soon/66686
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bark_bark_bark

Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 1935
Location: Wisconsin USA

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 20:12    Post subject:  

Sailor Enceladus wrote:
Quote:
the flaw is in the Intel x86-64 hardware

Oh good. My Intel cpu is 32-bit Smile


This issue has been around since the 90s apprantly

_________________
....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sailor Enceladus

Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 1540

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 22:03    Post subject:  

fabrice_035 wrote:
bad new!

I try with intel tool detection vulnerability

Code:


Application Version: 1.0.0.152
Scan date: 2018-01-03 16:08:00 GMT

*** Host Computer Information ***
Name: puppypc225xx
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Model: Studio XPS 1640
Processor Name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     P8600  @ 2.40GHz
OS Version:    (3.14.79)

*** Risk Assessment ***
Detection Error: This system may be vulnerable,
  either the Intel(R) MEI/TXEI driver is not installed
  (available from your system manufacturer)
  or the system manufacturer does not permit access
  to the ME/TXE from the host driver.

For more information refer to the INTEL-SA-00086 Detection Tool Guide or the
  Intel Security Advisory Intel-SA-00086 at the following link:
  https://www.intel.com/sa-00086-support





https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150?v=t

I think that is something else? The one for this thread seems to be called SA-00088:
https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr

I think what your error is telling you, is that Intel has no idea if you're vulnerable to SA-00086 or not because it can't find the driver MEI/TXEI it needs to test further (at least that is my first guess from the label "Detection Error" and it's description).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 11012
Location: Charleston S.C. USA

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jan 2018, 22:25    Post subject:  

Now you know how they are going to talk you into buying the next generation newest processor and Windows 11. Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes

If you build it so it never breaks. They will only buy it one time!!

_________________
I have found, in trying to help people, that the things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Keisha

Joined: 18 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan 2018, 01:02    Post subject: the Intel pti bug slowdown --impact on hardinfo  

Hello all, long time no see.

According to
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180102222354.qikjmf7dvnjgbkxe@alap3.anarazel.de

you can do what the patchset will do by setting pti=on (pti = page table isolation) in the kernel line of the grub bootloader.

At work I use a dual xeon e5-2696 v3, running Fedora 26, nice fast number-cruncher.

Hardinfo 0.6-alpha benchmark results on this machine with and without pti=on, average of three runs:

Without pti=on:
CPU Blowfish 0.28 seconds
CPU CryptoHash 3008.91 MiB/second
CPU Fibonacci 1.13 seconds
CPU N-Queens 26.97 seconds
CPU ZLib 5.75 seconds
FPU FFT 0.78 seconds
FPU Raytracing 29.84 seconds
GPU Drawing 21,815.72 HIMarks

With pti=on:
CPU Blowfish 0.29 seconds
CPU CryptoHash 2652 MiB/second
CPU Fibonacci 1.13 seconds
CPU N-Queens 27.04 seconds
CPU ZLib 5.86 seconds
FPU FFT 0.78 seconds
FPU Raytracing 42.42 seconds
GPU Drawing 22,494 HIMarks

CPU CryptoHash shows a 12% performance loss.
FPU Raytracing shows a 30% performance loss.

All other benchmarks, essentially the same. Subjectively, the machine doesn't feel any slower.

Could this translate to a significant advantage of AMD over Intel in product sales going forward?

_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” --Bruce Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
8Geee


Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 1668
Location: N.E. USA

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan 2018, 01:13    Post subject:  

based upon the previous post... is this something that can be added to extlinux_conf?

Regards
8Geee

_________________
Linux user #498913

Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 1127

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan 2018, 01:55    Post subject: Re: the Intel pti bug slowdown --impact on hardinfo  

Keisha wrote:


CPU CryptoHash shows a 12% performance loss.
FPU Raytracing shows a 30% performance loss.

All other benchmarks, essentially the same. Subjectively, the machine doesn't feel any slower.

Could this translate to a significant advantage of AMD over Intel in product sales going forward?


This is because the CPU is probably not the main bottleneck on your machine. I saw something that compared the growth rate of cpu performance to ram speeds and ram is falling behind in terms of More's law. I suspect this applies to non-volaitle storage as well.

This is of course my arm-chair opnion.

As an a-side note, I think that gameing the CPU specs by hiding a security valnrabilty is fraud. However, so is much of marketing and little is done about it.

Another random thought, devices are getting smaller and smaller and have less surface area to disapate heat. This slows down CPUs. If this slows down the CPU enough then maybe it will run as slow as the rest of the components.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Keisha

Joined: 18 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan 2018, 02:17    Post subject:  

8Geee wrote:
based upon the previous post... is this something that can be added to extlinux_conf?
I use grub2 and it's been a long time since I used extlinux, but I imagine you can.
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” --Bruce Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 4 [59 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1028s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0153s) ][ GZIP on ]