backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by kalak.. on Aug 8 at 2:42 PM


Developers told not to panic over new Intel Core 2 Duo steppings

OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt publicly denounced Intel’s Core 2 processors on the OpenBSD mailing list. Raadt cited 38 pages of processor errata from Intel’s published CPU specifications (PDF).

“These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don’t just cause development/debugging problems, but will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code," Raadt said. "Some of these are things that cannot be fixed in running code, and some are things that every operating system will do until about mid-2008, because that is how the MMU has always been managed on all generations of Intel/AMD/whoeverelse hardware."

Linux coordinator and former Transmeta employee Linus Torvalds, thought otherwise and considers these bugs “totally insignificant.”

Processor errata is nothing new, Torvalds said. Commodity CPUs such as chips based on the Intel Core 2 architecture have a considerably lower bug rate than proprietary boutique CPUs.

“Yeah, x86 errata get more attention," said Torvalds. "But those things are pretty damn well tested. Better than most.”

The errata document specifically mentions the Core 2 Duo E4000, E6000, and X6800 series processors. None of the errata are nearly as insidious or widespread as more infamous problems, like the original Pentium floating-point bug, although some can lead to buffer overflow exploits, claims de Raalt. All of the current errata have patches in the works or can be — and have been — worked around by developers.

In a statement from Intel Global Communications, Nick Knuppfer writes:

“Months ago, we addressed a processor issue by providing a BIOS update for our customers that in no way affects system performance. We publicly documented this as an erratum in April. All processors from all companies have errata, and Intel has a well-known errata communication process to inform our customers and the public. Keep in mind the probability of encountering this issue is extremely low."

“Specification Updates for the affected processors are available at http://developer.intel.com. All errata are thoroughly investigated for issues and vulnerabilities, should they have any we fix them, usually through a microcode update.”


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 5:13:58 PM , Rating: 4
Well, to my knowledge, Sudan never used chemical and biological weapons like Saddam did. There weren't partnered with Iran and other nations in developing nuclear technology (whether for weapons or just power generation is up for debate). So overall, I think taking out Saddam had alot more political and strategic motivation than just oil.

The oil argument never holds up once you look at the facts. Simply put, Iraq is not that oil rich and does not supply all that much oil. Kuwait has as much oil in it's ground than all of Iraq. The first Gulf War was clearly about protecting our oil assets, the second Gulf War had several other motivating factors. Iraq's production accounted for less than 4% of the top 14 oil exporting countries in the world, and only 3.3% of overall production. If Iraq refused to export to the US, then prices would rise, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of a war.

Sources: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmds


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By skaaman on 7/2/2007 6:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The oil argument never holds up once you look at the facts. Simply put, Iraq is not that oil rich and does not supply all that much oil. Kuwait has as much oil in it's ground than all of Iraq. The first Gulf War was clearly about protecting our oil assets, the second Gulf War had several other motivating factors. Iraq's production accounted for less than 4% of the top 14 oil exporting countries in the world, and only 3.3% of overall production. If Iraq refused to export to the US, then prices would rise, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of a war.


It has nothing to do with what they have. Every increment in the pulse rate of the middle east drives the price per barrel up. Sustained tension keeps it there.

Lets say for argument sake the whole thing resolved itself tomorrow. Sunnis love shiite love kurds. Everyones happy. Hezbollah says sorry Israel, you have a right to exist. In that instance, are you shorting that barrel of oil or going long?


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 7:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Political tension and investor worries have secondary, short-term effects on prices. Supply and demand are the over-arching drivers in almost any commodity market. Think about this, even if tension is high, if there's a flood of oil coming out, people/countries would simply stock pile some (short term increase), then start using whatever comes out (back to low prices).

The main reason prices have been going up is because OPEC has not been increasing their production (i.e. the supply) at a rate that matches the increases in world demand (which is skyrocketing with China and 3rd world nations becoming more industrial).

In addition, whether or not everything gets resolved, I would go long on oil, because I expect its price to go up over time. Selling short just allows you to cash in when it goes down, and it acts as a way for the economy to 'dampen' the price drop from a surge of oil onto the market.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By sviola on 7/4/2007 2:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. Here are the reasons:

1 - Iraq was an enemy of Iran. Iraq and Iran fought an 11 year war when the Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. The US economically and military helped Iraq. So, don't come with this Saddam was partnering with Iran, as this only shows you lack in history education.

2 - Iraq had one of the biggest armies in the region and was the only country that kept Iran in check. now that doesn't exist, Iran is the only military powerful country that is muslin.

3 - Iraq's previous oil production account was around 3.3% of the overall because the US put an embargo on Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991.

4 - Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world, accounting for almost 40% of the know oil capacity in the world.

5 - Halliburton (Cheney and Bush have stocks and worked there) has been the greatest beneficiary of the war, winning the most expensive Iraq reconstruction auctions and access to a great share of the oil in Iraq.

6 - Halliburton is under investigation for bribing and illegal activities on Iraq reconstruction and oil field auctions. Btw, vice Cheney is also under investigation.

7 - If it were humanity interests that drove the US, they would get out of Afganisthan so quick, and leave the country to few NATO soldiers, the taliban, drug dealers and Al-Qaeda to fight for it. (The US has less than 10k soldiers there)

8 - This war prevented the US from entering a recession: 150k soldiers in war are people with jobs, Weapon industry is manufacturing as never before, and oil, construction, telecommunications and engineering companies are making a big profit in Iraq (Fox News also, but for other reasons).

No, the US had only economic reasons for going to war. The two biggest consequences: increase of the internal deficit and Iran now has power in the middle-east it never did before (Iraq will probably become a Shi‘ite country after the US gets out, as the majority of the country follows that arm of Islam).


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki