Intel hardware bug

[Cameron, Frank J]

Eric McCorkle wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 11:40, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> > POWER has the same thing. It's actually stronger separation, since user
> > processes don't share addresses either -- all processes, including the
> > kernel, have windowed access to an 80-bit address space, so no process
> > can even describe an address in another process's address space. There
> > are ways, of course, in which IBM could have messed up the
> > implementation, so the fact that it *should* be secure does not mean it
> > *is*.
> 
> That's interesting, as it conflicts with Red Hat's vulnerability
> disclosure.  It that because the silicon is buggy, or because Linux
> somehow ends up being vulnerable when it need not be?

"Complete mitigation of this vulnerability for Power Systems clients
involves installing patches to both system firmware and operating
systems. The firmware patch provides partial remediation to this
vulnerability and is a pre-requisite for the OS patch to be effective."
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/psirt/potential-impact-processors-power-family/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any files transmitted within are intended
solely for the addressee or its representative and may contain
company proprietary information.  If you are not the intended
recipient, notify the sender immediately and delete this
message.  Publication, reproduction, forwarding, or content
disclosure is prohibited without the consent of the original
sender and may be unlawful.

Concurrent Technologies Corporation and its Affiliates.
www.ctc.com  1-800-282-4392
-----------------------------------------------------------------