Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | eggnet's commentslogin

They’re adding the cache consumed across all of their servers. It’s not one giant deep cache.

I wonder how hard it would be to create various firmware updaters for drives or other devices.

I'd be cautious here because you very easily could brick the hardware. For writing a PC driver it's a lot safer since you can just fail repeatedly until it works.

Firmware is a lot harder for a whole host of reasons but it is possible / I've done it.

The odds of success go up a LOT when the stock firmware is easy to extract and reverse engineer.


The easiest path is when you get access to a firmware update distribution.

This reminds me to have a look at the latest update I installed in my car for my navigation system and which is installed via an USB key.


Trust shifts to the producer of the open weight model, based on the global communicated experience of all models they’ve ever produced.


This doesn't make any sense! Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Why is Windows not open source then, where we can trust Microsoft based on the experience with previous Windows versions?


It has already happened and the open weight models will only improve. Best to accept that and determine the optimal way forward.


TLS also allows for the contents of a boot image to be hidden from others.


Ok, but so what?

You guys are out here protecting against ghosts but at the same time making the really important stuff 10x harder and more vulnerable to bugs.


The lack of ads, and the algorithm for sorting the feed.

I think the spectrum runs from social media, to forum, to news feed… maybe other things. HN isn’t toxic.


I assume it would be chrome debug, and their chrome plugin, like it is on macos and windows. They could punt arbitrary app control easily enough.


That happens with execve(). clone() allows you to not copy the page table prior to the execve() call.


Which argument to clone does that?


There are microcode updates for this already https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/a...


but is it possible to verify that the cloud provider has applied the update?


The SEV-SNP attestation includes the microcode version. https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/developer/l...


Yes, it is. You do have to have some infrastructure you trust somewhere to validate an attestation report from the confidential VM.


/proc/cpuinfo shows the current microcode version


/proc/cpuinfo shows whatever the hypervisor said, often simply "microcode : 0x1000065"

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/518e7b94817abed94be... https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/ac6721b88df944ade0048822b2...


i don't think the information that unprivilleged VMs can obtain from that is necessarily reliable. for example with Xen as hypervisor only dom0 is privilleged (as management console for the system) and still it needs to call dedicated tooling in order to read or manage CPU features like clock speed or frequency scaling


That’s for rx, not tx. When you close a socket with data in the send buffer, that does not trigger a RST. If you just close the socket normally.


> When you close a socket with data in the send buffer

That's not what's happening here. The server is closing the socket when there's data from the client that it hasn't read.


Yep, and that makes implementing addition of "Connection: close" in an HTTP reply at the HTTP/1.1-server's side somewhat tricky: you ideally need to read all of the pipelined requests from the client before closing the connection, which is usually something you'd rather not do. But if you just close it, you risk your client getting a partial reply, so you better add "Content-Length"/"Transfer-Encoding: chunked" in your reply as well... but one common reason to do connection-close reply is when you don't know the content-length beforehand, so — I hope you implemented chunking correctly :)


Even if you just close it, and it RSTs, and you implement chunked etc. properly, the client can't even necessarily read all of the information already sent to the client.

If the client does a read() after the RST gets there, any data in the receive window is gone, any packets that might have been dropped and need to be resent are gone, etc.


More explicit connection closing indications are one of the nice things of http/2. Of course, it's bundled with the silly multiplexing :(


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: