[MODERATED] Starting to go public?

[MODERATED] Starting to go public?

[Linus Torvalds]

Looks like the papers are starting to leak:

   https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf

yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
"spolier" part looks like MDS.

             Linus

[MODERATED] Re: Starting to go public?

[Andrew Cooper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

On 05/03/2019 16:43, speck for Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looks like the papers are starting to leak:
>
>    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf
>
> yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
> "spolier" part looks like MDS.

So Intel was aware of that paper, but wasn't expecting it to go public
today.

From their point of view, it is a traditional timing sidechannel on a
piece of the pipeline (which happens to be component which exists for
speculative memory disambiguation).

There are no proposed changes to the MDS timeline at this point.

~Andrew

[MODERATED] Re: Starting to go public?

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Andrew Cooper wrote:

> > Looks like the papers are starting to leak:
> >
> >    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf
> >
> > yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
> > "spolier" part looks like MDS.
> 
> So Intel was aware of that paper, but wasn't expecting it to go public
> today.
> 
> =46rom their point of view, it is a traditional timing sidechannel on a
> piece of the pipeline (which happens to be component which exists for
> speculative memory disambiguation).
> 
> There are no proposed changes to the MDS timeline at this point.

So this is not the paper that caused the panic fearing that PSF might leak 
earlier than the rest of the issues in mid-february (which few days later 
Intel claimed to have succesfully negotiated with the researches not to 
publish before the CRD)?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

[MODERATED] Re: Starting to go public?

[Andrew Cooper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On 05/03/2019 20:36, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
>>> Looks like the papers are starting to leak:
>>>
>>>    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf
>>>
>>> yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
>>> "spolier" part looks like MDS.
>> So Intel was aware of that paper, but wasn't expecting it to go public
>> today.
>>
>> =46rom their point of view, it is a traditional timing sidechannel on a
>> piece of the pipeline (which happens to be component which exists for
>> speculative memory disambiguation).
>>
>> There are no proposed changes to the MDS timeline at this point.
> So this is not the paper that caused the panic fearing that PSF might leak 
> earlier than the rest of the issues in mid-february (which few days later 
> Intel claimed to have succesfully negotiated with the researches not to 
> publish before the CRD)?

Correct.

The incident you are referring to is a researcher who definitely found
PSF, contacted Intel and was initially displeased at the proposed embargo.

~Andrew

[MODERATED] Encrypted Message

[Jon Masters]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/rfc822-headers; protected-headers="v1", Size: 121 bytes --]

From: Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>
To: speck for Andrew Cooper <speck@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Starting to go public?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1380 bytes --]

On 3/5/19 5:31 PM, speck for Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/03/2019 20:36, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>> Looks like the papers are starting to leak:
>>>>
>>>>    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf
>>>>
>>>> yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
>>>> "spolier" part looks like MDS.
>>> So Intel was aware of that paper, but wasn't expecting it to go public
>>> today.
>>>
>>> =46rom their point of view, it is a traditional timing sidechannel on a
>>> piece of the pipeline (which happens to be component which exists for
>>> speculative memory disambiguation).
>>>
>>> There are no proposed changes to the MDS timeline at this point.
>> So this is not the paper that caused the panic fearing that PSF might leak 
>> earlier than the rest of the issues in mid-february (which few days later 
>> Intel claimed to have succesfully negotiated with the researches not to 
>> publish before the CRD)?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The incident you are referring to is a researcher who definitely found
> PSF, contacted Intel and was initially displeased at the proposed embargo.

Indeed. There are at least three different teams with papers that read
on MDS, and all of them are holding to the embargo.

Jon.

-- 
Computer Architect | Sent with my Fedora powered laptop

[MODERATED] Encrypted Message

[Jon Masters]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/rfc822-headers; protected-headers="v1", Size: 135 bytes --]

From: Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>
To: speck for Linus Torvalds <speck@linutronix.de>
Subject: NOT PUBLIC - Re: Starting to go public?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --]

On 3/5/19 11:43 AM, speck for Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looks like the papers are starting to leak:
> 
>    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00446.pdf
> 
> yes, yes, a lot of the attack seems to be about rowhammer, but the
> "spolier" part looks like MDS.

It's not but it is close to finding PSF behavior. The thing they found
is described separately in one of the original Intel store patent. So we
are at risk but should not panic.

I've spoken with several researchers sitting on MDS papers and confirmed
that they are NOT concerned at this stage. Of course everyone is
carefully watching and that's why we need to have contingency. People
will start looking in this area (I know of three teams doing so) now.

Jon.

-- 
Computer Architect | Sent with my Fedora powered laptop