This is an unreasonable position. Vulnerabilities can be fixed
That's a highly optimistic position, to the point of being almost wishful thinking.
The vulnerability being talked about today has been around since 2014 according to the report. Possibly being exploited for unknown number of years since. Sure, maybe we can workaround this one, now.
Other similar ones to be published years into the future are also there today being likely exploited as we speak.
Running untrusted code on the same silicon as sensitive code (data), is unlikely to ever actually be truly safe.
We should move forward. Apple did a great job with the M{1,2} processors. Not only they are fantastic in terms of performance and energy usage, but also (to this moment) they don't seem to suffer from these issues. The reason is that the CPU is simpler, and a simpler thing is easy to design right in the first place.
This would also require changes at the OS-makers to tag thread forks for trusted and untrusted behavior.
Essentially: instead of shutting down SMT for the entire machine, make the customer "prove" the code is safe for elevation or else it gets scheduled as non-SMT.
Yes. I did not mean to imply the real problem had a simple solution.
Even if we could say for sure that x86 has been disproportionately affected by speculative execution bugs (which already seems dubious), that could easily be due to a kind of selection bias. Presumably security researchers as a group more or less focus on the most popular and relevant ISAs/microarchitectures.
Responsible people tend to pick the small consequence now over the unknowable distribution of consequences later.
Not always the damage.
Aren't system designers at fault for coming up with the idea of a context switch and assuming that we can trust a processor not to leak details across artificial software constructed boundaries?
You write data inside the registers, yes, other processes can read these registers.
It always been like this, and is absolutely normal.
It's the responsibility of the operating system to clear the registers if it is switching context.
These side channel attacks allow an attacker to read registers from other processes before any context switching has occurred, or independently of any context switching (even if the OS has been written to correctly clear state).
In my mind the better mitigation is to put control over trusted code back to the user and to do that you have to add less-performant cores onto the die and force the operator to elevate (or not) to SMT.
Right now it's an all-or-nothing proposition for the whole board. I would like to think that you can take your untrusted code and stick it on the less-performy cores with the safer instruction pipelining scheme so an actual physical barrier exists.
If that was in the chip architecture, then it's up to OS vendors to surface it in a way that developers understand, and then down to the operator to decide upon configuration.
You are never going to get a perfect-solve from the chipmakers on this where the consumer has to do nothing.
Context switching was in the Apollo 11 guidance computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx7Lfh5SKUQ
The problem is that cycle-speed boosts left the industry cic. 2012-or-so. All the perf boost we get these days is by optimizing the instruction sequencing and multiprocessing. This is why languages like Go popped up (making the advanced programming topic of multiprogramming an entry-level accomplishment) and you now see the 'async' decorator plastered everywhere in C#, and so-on.
Keeping the security context intact and separated is a gargantuan task.
To me it makes more sense to add "lousy cores" to the die and force the operator to declare the launching threads are safe for SMT, else the job gets scheduled to the less-performing core where the pipelining is safer. It delegates responsibility to the chip-gobbler, forces them to understand the tradeoff for performance, until some elegant solution is found for side channel attacks like this.
It's not the guaranteed security as much as the advertised speed that's the issue. If they put out a chip which could only be used at half the advertised speed or else it would catch on fire, nobody would argue that they should be let off the hook because they didn't guarantee that the chips were fireproof in their ads.
If the chips can't perform at advertised speeds safely during typical use they're not delivering what was advertised.