[mehrdadn]

Ahh, I was referring to the US, and bugs that weren't known at the time of sale (I'll edit this in), but thank you, this is still useful information.

[ta_wh]

See the three-year warranty here for boxed CPUs: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/pr...

Note the first bullet under "WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER":

"design defects or errors in the Product (Errata). Contact Intel for information on characterized errata."

Guess we're not covered on this one.

EDIT: That being said, given the potential scope of this issue (years of affected CPUs, massive PR hit) I'm hoping that Intel will at least offer some remedy to recent buyers. According to the article from The Register [1], OS vendors have been working on the fix since November. The blog posted over on pythonsweetness [2] posits the bug may have been identified in October. It'd be interesting to know for how long Intel has been selling Coffee Lake CPUs that are known to be vulnerable.

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_fl...

[2] http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-myst...

[mehrdadn]

Thanks for posting this!

It seems self-contradictory to me. How can Intel warrant that

> the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications

while simultaneously disclaiming warranty for

> design defects or errors in the Product (Errata)

?

If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?

[blattimwind]

Easy: Erratas are actually specification updates. (And indeed, not just by sound and smoke, since most errata are never fixed but rather declared this-is-how-it-works-now).

In some abstract, philosophical sense it means that the specs are actually elected by majority of the produced processors.

[ta_wh]

I'm no lawyer, but my instincts tell me someone would have to prove that the chips today do not conform to Intel's specs, and that this difference is such that the CPU no longer "substantially conforms" to the spec.

> If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?

We're on the same page. What do you think Intel will argue?

Keep in mind Intel did initiate a substantial recall of Pentium CPUs in the late 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

[mehrdadn]

I mean they would likely argue it's still substantially conforming even if it has bugs that come up, but I'm trying to figure out what kind of a case they could actually win.

[blattimwind]

Why try to win a case if all you need is a settlement? Going into an actual trial is far riskier than negotiating a settlement, for both sides.

[m_eiman]

What they're saying is that they'll replace your chip if it behaves differently from all the other chips of the same model, not if ALL the chips are broken by design.

[mehrdadn]

Where does their sentence about the specification come into play in your interpretation?

[m_eiman]

"the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications"

They're saying that it should work as specified for the most part. And apparently the CPUs do, since they've been in continuous use for many years.

Note that they also have this exception:

"… THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER: … that the Product will protect against all possible security threats, including intentional misconduct by third parties;"

Which is likely designed to handle issues just like this one.