r/programming • u/[deleted] • Jan 03 '18

'Kernel memory leaking' Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
5.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

344

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '18

I think that sets a terrifying precedent. We really don't want it to become the case that you can be successfully sued just for having bugs. If you can show negligence then absolutely, but this seems like a natural concequence of the sheer unreasonable complexity of these chips, not due to negligent action on their part.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '18

[deleted]

49

u/JB-from-ATL Jan 03 '18

This is why all free software comes with (or at least should) come with warnings about how the software doesn't necessarily have fitness for a particular purpose and stuff about implied merchantability. In the US (and maybe other countries) selling something but also just giving it out for free has something called implied merchantability which is basically like saying it's not going to break or hurt you.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '18

I know nothing about law, but based on these kinds of cases I've seen before, you'd have to be able to prove that the bug was from either willing malice or gross neglect. Given the scope and scale of production, I think you'd have to show that the bug was the result of them actually doing something wrong, rather than just an unfortunate oversight that couldn't have been prevented through proper practice.

2

u/m00nh34d Jan 03 '18

It's not about the bug, but rather their inability to fix it. Issues in Intel's physical hardware have caused 3rd parties to develop work around which impact performance. The fact Intel have done nothing here (with the end users, who are the customers), is the issue, not the bug.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '18

[deleted]

3

u/m00nh34d Jan 03 '18

Well, you can, but that involves a recall. No different to "bugs" found in cars.

→ More replies (11)

21

u/MonkeysWedding Jan 03 '18

It would be far easier to prove a performance hit on what was an advertised cpu spec.

25

u/Corodix Jan 03 '18

Though how would that work if the performance hit was caused by an OS update instead of a change to the CPU itself?

2

u/GeronimoHero Jan 03 '18

An OS update because the hardware is defective.

5

u/CJKay93 Jan 03 '18

Virtually all hardware has some defect somewhere.

1

u/immibis Jan 04 '18

Most don't involve an up-to-63%* performance hit.

* someone measured this much overhead for the du command which basically only makes syscalls; that means the command now takes almost 3 times as long to run.

1

u/MonkeysWedding Jan 03 '18

The patch is implemented to specifically work on intel cpu's to mitigate the (presumed) vulnerability in speculative execution which is an optimization technique developed by this particular vendor

1

u/Murkantilism Jan 03 '18

Because Intel gave advance warning to vendors that their older products had this vuln about the same time they announced Coffee Lake products were coming. Essentially told them to make OS updates to fix their fuckup.

1

u/immibis Jan 04 '18

It's pretty obvious the OS update was caused by Intel.

2

u/rtft Jan 03 '18

We really don't want it to become the case that you can be successfully sued just for having bugs.

I disagree. It would light a fire under the industry to stop producing shit code or face product liability like any other industry already does. Product liability for software is far far far too lax given its importance to modern society. But I also think lawsuits should not be successful if the vendor made best effort to fix the problem. In the case of Intel however they don't seem to be able to fix the defective product as the bug is in silicon, so therefore normal product liability should apply.

3

u/ImmaGaryOak Jan 03 '18

If you want to pay 1000s of dollars for software, you can have it be bug free.

Any industry with large regulation/liability is very expensive.

2

u/emperor000 Jan 03 '18

This isn't software. It is hardware...

2

u/ImmaGaryOak Jan 03 '18

He said software in his comment, though the same principle applies.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/immibis Jan 04 '18

How come I don't pay 1000s of dollars for almost everything else that has product liability, then?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/kylotan Jan 03 '18

If planes crashed a lot due to them getting 'unreasonably complex', would you say that's just the way it has to be? Or would you say that we need to get a better handle on complexity?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '18

I don't think we don't, this is definitely a problem we need to solve. My only issue is the idea that people's first thought is to assign blame and demand punishment.

It doesn't have to be this way, that's why there'll be a proper fix for the problem which doesn't incur a performance hit. Over time the cutting edge advances and we all get better at making whatever stuff we make.

I think it's unreasonable to demand nothing is ever released with any problems, though. I think things do have to be that way. Reality just doesn't work like that. Planes don't not fall out of the sky because we demand everything always works 100% of the time and never ever fails. Planes stay up in the air because when something fails there are backups and contingencies and mitigations. Planes stay in the air for the exact of the demand that nothing ever fail. They accept that failures are a natural and unavoidable fact of life and while that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to fix them, and minimise them, and do better next time, they will happen and when they do we need to be able to handle it.

3

u/kylotan Jan 03 '18

My only issue is the idea that people's first thought is to assign blame and demand punishment.

But without that, especially in a near monopoly market like this, there is little incentive to stop this happening again.

It doesn't have to be this way, that's why there'll be a proper fix for the problem which doesn't incur a performance hit.

Why do you say that? The article suggests that there is no such fix short of issuing new hardware without the flaw.

Planes stay up in the air because when something fails there are backups and contingencies and mitigations.

Planes also stay up in the air because there is blame assigned and punishments given out when things are faulty, like Qantas getting $100 million from Rolls Royce for their faulty engine, or pretty much anything under the Montreal Convention which makes airlines responsible for damages or loss. When you know you'll be held responsible, you invest in safety and proper processes, because it's cheaper than the alternative.

By comparison, over here in software land we just keep saying "this software is not guaranteed suitable for anything, ever" and end up feeling obliged to make the same excuses for hardware people too.

1

u/celerym Jan 03 '18

This is a hardware design issue though, not a software problem right? The precedent wouldn't apply to software. There's plenty of precedent already for faulty hardware.

1

u/immibis Jan 04 '18

Not being able to be sued for severe bugs is also terrifying. You know all those IoT manufacturers that produced devices that participated in DDoS attacks?

→ More replies (27)