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

2018-02-13 Thread Peter Humphrey
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 it

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

2018-02-13 Thread mad.scientist.at.large
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' l

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

2018-02-13 Thread mad.scientist.at.large
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 hel

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

2018-02-13 Thread mad.scientist.at.large
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 corpora

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

2018-02-13 Thread Mick
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 is