Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-microcode-benchmark-mitigation,37684.html

by jsheard • 8 years ago

168 56 8 years ago

dmitrygr• 8 years ago

No explanations, no apologies, just this:

We are updating the license now to address this and will have a new version available soon. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback.

eahman08• 8 years ago

Would it change anything if they said "we are sorry"?

dsr_• 8 years ago

Yes.

"That was a mistake, won't happen again" is an acknowledgement that they got it wrong and a promise not to do it again.

"We're changing it" is neither one.

krn1p4n1c• 8 years ago

It'd be the same kind of "We're sorry" as the South Park BP oil spill commercial.

mikeash• 8 years ago

A proper apology is not just “sorry,” but includes an acknowledgment of what they did wrong and that they’ll avoid doing the same thing again. Showing that they realize the nature of the problem and will at least pretend to not do it again would be good.

shittyadmin• 8 years ago

Well, at least they didn't make excuses or delay things, just said "don't worry I fixed it" basically. That's about the same thing I tell datacenters when they catch me seeding torrents.

Skunkleton2• 8 years ago

same thing I tell datacenters when they catch me seeding torrents

Well, it is right there in your username :)

dmichulke• 8 years ago

soon

IIRC, at the time they talked about the delivery of the initial patches for Meltdown and Spectre, Intel's definition of "soon" was somewhere between "4 weeks" and "never"

kev009• 8 years ago

How do you gaffe this bad? How is someone that incompetent in the decision making loop? Some random engineer creating the ucode or uploading it to the web doesn't come up with this kind of idea to change license language. These are edicts from management. I'd love for that conversation to leak in full.

pwg• 8 years ago

That language is likely derived from a path similar to this:

"Marketing department" -- We are sick of seeing the world complain that our patches to these problems reduce performance by X percent. Hey "Legal Dept", can anything be done about that?

"Legal Dept" -- We will see what we can do...

Result, a new clause appears in the license file that says "no bench-marking".

With no one in the path ever having heard of the Streisand effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) (yes, Streisand effect is not a perfect fit here, but the 'publicity' part of the effect is what in fact has occurred).

Aloha5• 8 years ago

I suspect its something more banal.

I believe intel does distribute test/beta microcode to certain partners, and likely security researchers, this kind of statement is something you would put in a beta version, I wonder if someone simply used the wrong license file when they deployed this to the website.

babypuncher• 8 years ago

I refuse to believe the entire marketing department is dense enough not to see how that would backfire.

cesarb• 8 years ago

I saw a tweet somewhere (IIRC in the anandtech sidebar, unfortunately I'm not finding it right now) where the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode which leaked into the final version.

djsumdog2• 8 years ago

That makes much more sense. If that's what happened, Intel should just come out and say it. Own your mistakes, or at least adopt this lie if it wasn't a mistake, simply because it's plausible and will help them save face from a PR perspective. (The Nobel Lie as it would be).

geezerjay• 8 years ago

the poster speculated that it was the EULA for a beta version of the microcode

I don't see how this changes anything at all.

Aloha5• 8 years ago

This is also what I suspect

walterbell• 8 years ago

Helpful side-effect of this leak: benchmark public reaction.

ksec• 8 years ago

that was Ryan smith. chief editor of anandtech.

https://twitter.com/RyanSmithAT/status/1032546813176307712

and if it was true they would have said so in their reply.

hajile• 8 years ago

Companies like IBM or Oracle have had these clauses for decades to prevent users from comparing performance.

Such EULA clauses need to be put to the test and overturned for the anti-consumer monopolistic garbage they are.

mmagin• 8 years ago

I was casually wondering the other day if Intel had hired some Oracle lawyers recently :)

thsealienbstrds• 8 years ago

Yep. It's like buying a box of cookies that says you agree to not compare the taste of these cookies with the tastes of other cookies.

jeswin• 8 years ago

Kudos to the debian team for their uncompromising stand - this may have set a precedent otherwise.

notmyname• 8 years ago

Here's the update: https://01.org/mcu-path-license-2018

found via https://twitter.com/imadsousou/status/1032680311753072640

djsumdog2• 8 years ago

So has anyone broken the currently EULA and published benchmarks with the new microcode updates anyway?

bearjaws• 8 years ago

Im curious to see the benchmarks too.

m_st• 8 years ago

Intel has. Here are some benchmarks: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

anonymousDan• 8 years ago

So basically the fix is to disable hyperthreading?

xvf22• 8 years ago

This seems like someone testing the waters. I fear as they fall further behind the behaviour may become more desperate.

Aloha5• 8 years ago

I think Hanlon's razor is more correct here.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

TangoTrotFox• 8 years ago

"I", as a multinational multi billion dollar corporation could then carry out the most vile acts, but as long as I can feign 'oops' I ought never be held to account as if my acts had intent? I mean come on, they're killing their processor performance due to their own security vulnerabilities and oopsie daisy we just accidentally included a 'no benchmarking' clause? I've got a better razor for - Occam's.

paulie_a• 8 years ago

But at the end of the day who would have given a shit about the license on a cpu? It would have been ignored.

evfanknitram• 8 years ago

Maybe some larger tech sites would choose not to publish?

jrockway2• 8 years ago

The EULA was never the stick for them. Intel can say "kill this story or you never get swag and engineering samples again" and it's done.

kardos• 8 years ago

People who play by the rules in this space, which includes (many) open source developers. Flaunting the ill-conceived license is one choice, getting it fixed is a better choice.

acd• 8 years ago

From a legal point of view can you limit free speech through a end user license agreement? Free speech is protected by the first amendment, many countries basic legal laws. If some challenged it and it went to the high court how would it likely judge?

monocasa2• 8 years ago

Free speech is a protection that the government can't take away, but you can give it away of your own volition.

Think NDAs.

richrichardsson2• 8 years ago

I'm not a US citizen but I seem to be more aware of what the 1st amendment actually entails more than a seemingly large proportion of actual citizens, surely you guys learn that stuff at school? Is it just presented really dryly and so kids don't pay attention?

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

Yes, free speech in some legal systems (including the US) includes the right to sell your speech (and restraint from speech is also a form of speech.)

jrockway2• 8 years ago

I have trouble believing this was anything other than some random employee selecting the wrong license. I'm glad they fixed it.

reacharavindh• 8 years ago

Curious, if Intel stood by their "no benchmarking" rule, can someone post the detailed benchmark results anonymously via say pastebin or something? Sure, you can't trust it like you from something like phoronix, but the results can then be freely shared on social media right?

What am i missing?

jplayer01• 8 years ago

The problem is trust though. Benchmarks are only worth considering if the source is reliable. Unknown sources by definition aren't, because it's easy to fudge the numbers and give fake methodology. There's no consequences for the unknown benchmarker if he intentionally misleads. Anandtech et al. have reputations to protect.

Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

Related Stories