News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors. Parent comment

Re:Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors by IgorPartola on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @12:23PM (#16053377)
Large cloud providers don't make decisions emotionally. They'll take a "let's mitigate the ME stuff and buy best support + performance per dollar hardware possible" approach. They don't care much about the opinion of the outraged hackers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors by fulafel on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @02:34PM (#16054737)
Security track record is taken seriously by many big vendors.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors by rdtsc on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @04:55PM (#16056119)
Usually mitigated by a special incentives like "15% extra discount for next 2 years if you stay with us". Intel has enough cash and market presence to be able to do those deal.

At the same time AMD also has a golden opportunity to for some PR and marketing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors by IgorPartola on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @02:39PM (#16054796)
Is it? That seems like a big broad claim. Again, after things like RowHammer, did anyone actually do anything differently in a way that affected stock prices?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Linux page table isolation is not needed on AMD processors by fulafel on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @10:38PM (#16058141)
Like everyone else, I sure would want to know what kinds of conversations have been going on around RowHammer and customers most affected by it, and system/DRAM vendors.

I'm not a believer in stock price as good indicator of anything, sorry to skip that part.

[ Parent | on HN ]