|
|
|
|
|
|
by tiffanyh
1059 days ago
|
|
|
>"Software running on OpenBSD can clearly use AVX, but the kernel and core OS doesn't yet, which security wise seems to be the smart move." That's not accurate. OpenBSD does use AVX, it's just very minimal. What's the "smart move" then here? That OpenBSD just never got around to implementing AVX more thoroughly? If you're implying that OpenBSD had always considered AVX a security issue, then why are they still having to patch for it (and why did they adopt some use of it)? Skimming through various OpenBSD mail list, I can't find any past threads discussing their concerns about AVX prior to ZenBleed. https://www.openbsd.org/mail.html |
|
|
Realistically that probably the right answer, they didn't have the developers nor did they priorities going in and just retro-actively fitting AVX in everywhere where it could potentially help with speed. The "smart choice" deliberately or not, is to not just jump onto everything new but adopt new features at a slower pace.
My reaction was towards against stuff like this:
> I get frustrated because many times OpenBSD is immune to security vulnerability simply because they don't implement modern tech advancements like AVX.
I don't get that. Sure part of it is might not getting around to implementing it, but there's also an implicit choice in not just going in and adopting new features everywhere just because you might need it. OpenBSD developers doesn't seem to have viewed AVX as being something that needed to be prioritized. Otherwise it would have been in more places.
But you're right, they do use AVX, that's clearly a mistake on my part.