[gentoo-user] Re: Vulnerability info in /sys

On 2018-02-13 18:38, Daniel Frey wrote: > > See the other threads: you need at least 4.9.79 for the /sys bits. > I'm surprised I missed those threads, I read all messages on here. > According to the thread I found it's actually starts on 4.9.77, I'm > just on the latest stable (.76). You're

[gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

On 2018-02-14 00:27, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > It's not so much that we've produced a generation of bad coders who > > don't know better, the problem is no one cares about anything other > > than $$$ in america any more. > > What do you mean, "any more"? Wasn't it ever thus? When I arrived in

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Vulnerability info in /sys

On 02/12/18 19:39, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-02-12 19:24, Daniel Frey wrote: > >> I've read online that there should be vulnerability info (Meltdown, >> Spectre) in /sys under /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities but this >> doesn't exist on my PC. > >> I've updated to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 21:50:28 GMT mad.scientist.at.la...@tutanota.com wrote: > It's not so much that we've produced a generation of bad coders who don't > know better, the problem is no one cares about anything other than $$$ in > america any more. What do you mean, "any more"? Wasn't

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

No, i don't mean Nick, he gave a correct and honest analyses.  I mean people who lie and obfuscate on behalf of their' employer and encourage people to use products they know are grossly defective, people who think comingling code and data is acceptable practice, mostly because it makes their'

[gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

On 2018-02-13 22:50, mad.scientist.at.la...@tutanota.com wrote: > seriously, can we try to keep these corporate schills the hell off the > list? I guess you mean the core kernel devs, who after all wrote the page quoted by Nick? If you feel that way maybe switch to a BSD kernel? -- Please

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

Sorry Mick, that was directed at the original poster of this disinformation.  Not sorry about the venom for the original corporate whore. mad.scientist.at.large (a good madscientist) -- God bless the rich, the greedy and the corrupt politicians they have put into office.   God bless them for

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

That is specious reasoning at best.  The jit option requires that you allow mixed instructions/data in memory, which leaves you open to a lot more than spectre.  The problem is you've (Red Hat) sold people a bill of goods with java jit, the solution is for people to write proper code and

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub2 boot problem

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:21 PM, wrote: > > you need to include the punctuation, specifically the ":"s, which > usually are a "-", mac addresses use the ":" but unless the syntax has > changed/broadened you have to have the "-" for seperating the fields > in

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub2 boot problem

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Magnus Johansson wrote: >> [ I assume that "46488b259685a3b9c52b7449d592dc80" is the UUID that's >> displayed as "UUID" or "Array UUID" when you use "mdadm -D ..." or >> "mdadm -E ..." respectively ] > > Almost, mdadm says

Re: [gentoo-user] DRM error: couldn't read SADs

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 01:10:16 GMT Jack wrote: > It's been a long time since I've needed to do it, and it was also due > to a (cheap?) KVM switch, but I think there are two things that might > help. First, if you boot the PC with that monitor connected, it might > actually read the EDID

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: some spectre v1 code in 4.15.2

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 02:18:33 GMT Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 13/02/18 03:31, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > On 2018-02-13 03:13, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> Apparently, and contrary to what people (me included) wrote here in > >> the past, BPF JIT is the secure option, and the interpreter

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub2 boot problem

> you need to include the punctuation, specifically the ":"s, which usually > are a "-", mac addresses use the ":" but unless the syntax has > changed/broadened you have to have the "-" for seperating the fields in a > uuid. The punctuation is part of the syntax (besides breaking the uuid > into