By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), May 24, 2022 10:03 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brendan (btrotter.delete@this.gmail.com) on May 24, 2022 5:09 pm wrote:
> e) failing to do it is going to have more consequences in future. I can almost guarantee that sooner
> or later Intel will release a chip where one type of core has "undiscovered at time of release" errata;
> and we'll be facing a micro-code update that wipes out a random extension (will it be TSX again? SGX?
> AMX? VT-x?) on all cores and not just the effected cores, with people complaining and refusing to install
> the micro-code update ("I paid for it and use it, why are you disabling it when it works properly on
> these cores?"), and with software developers left trying to deal with the fallout.
So your argument is that because Intel has shown they are incompetent with new extensions in the past, OS developers should shoulder the burden of making it easier for them to cover for their mistakes?
The microcode updated will be done by the OS if the user fails to update EFI, so they won't have any choice in the matter other than refuse to patch their OS. If they do that on the "I paid for it and use it" logic, they deserve whatever brokenness they get.
> e) failing to do it is going to have more consequences in future. I can almost guarantee that sooner
> or later Intel will release a chip where one type of core has "undiscovered at time of release" errata;
> and we'll be facing a micro-code update that wipes out a random extension (will it be TSX again? SGX?
> AMX? VT-x?) on all cores and not just the effected cores, with people complaining and refusing to install
> the micro-code update ("I paid for it and use it, why are you disabling it when it works properly on
> these cores?"), and with software developers left trying to deal with the fallout.
So your argument is that because Intel has shown they are incompetent with new extensions in the past, OS developers should shoulder the burden of making it easier for them to cover for their mistakes?
The microcode updated will be done by the OS if the user fails to update EFI, so they won't have any choice in the matter other than refuse to patch their OS. If they do that on the "I paid for it and use it" logic, they deserve whatever brokenness they get.
