On June 20, 2025 3:04:53 PM PDT, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Most of the cover letter here reads like an Intel whitepaper. That's not >> the worst thing in the world, but I think it glosses over one very >> important point: >> >> Had it been available, LASS alone would have mitigated Meltdown. >> >> Could we say this up front in a prominent place, please? > >I'm going to nitpick. :) > >Yes, LASS would have made Meltdown a far less major problem than it was, >but I don't think that phrasing is fair. As I recall, LASS was >literally invented as a "what would have been useful?" exercise in the >wake of Meltdown. > >However, a less well known/researched area of Meltdown, which would not >be addressed by LASS, is the ability to pend stores to read-only memory >and proceed with the expectation that they'll success. > >Other things which would have helped would have been PKS (and this *was* >asked for ahead of Skylake launching...) > >The other important thing about LASS is that it does cut off a whole >class of sidechannels. This halts definitely-rogue speculation, but is >useful for non-speculative security too. > >~Andrew Could you clarify what you mean with "pend stores to read-only memory?"
