Re: Hyper-Threading Considered Harmful
From: Stephen Sprunk (stephen_at_sprunk.org)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:38:36 -0500
"Francois Grieu" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> In article <z5Tge.16306$J12.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Bryan Olson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The world is going to hyper-threading and multi-core, and
> > probably then to hyper-threaded-unified-poly-core. Sure, I just
> > made up that term, but many people foresee the hardware and O.S.
> > cooperating to figure out how many and which threads to run at
> > once, to take best advantage of the various execution units.
> > We'll have a brave new world of side channel attacks.
> A nice alternative is to move cryptography to dedicated hardware;
> such as tamper-resistant modules or Smart Cards for Public Key
> crypto and low-bandwidth en/decryption, on-the-die crypto support
> for fast block ciphers.
Or AMD and Intel could just implement Via's AES instructions; they take
minimal die space, especially considering the behemoth processors coming
out these days. Constant-time execution means timing attacks aren't
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov