[ytpete]

Couldn't you do something like have a separate chunk of "speculative cache" which you only commit to the main cache once the speculatively-executed instructions are retired? Sounds complex, sure - but it seems like that would give you the performance benefits of speculative execution while still being able to roll back (or prevent in the first place) any cache-state side effects when branches were mispredicted. Could also imagine processors start segregating cache by privilege level.

I guess part of the question you're raising is: are there so many different caches, translation buffers, etc. in a modern CPU that keeping 'uncommitted buffers' for the state of all of them would be just as complex as throwing a whole other core in there?

[contrarian_]

No, that would not be enough. CPUs speculatively execute across multiple branches. Even if you had a separate speculative cache for every code path, you could still build a side-channel from the amount of contention. [1]

[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/613.pdf

> Both hardware thread systems (SMT and TMT) expose contention within the execution core. In SMT, the threads effectively compete in real time for access to functional units, the L1 cache, and speculation resources (such as the BTB). This is similar to the real-time sharing that occurs between separate cores, but includes all levels of the architecture. [...] SMT has been exploited in known attacks (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1)

[spenczar5]

Possibly - but that's an entirely new processor design. That would take years to get released an adopted.

The scary thing is that you can't fix this in software.