"y'all, let's take old architectures that aren't vulnerable to the things that affect new architectures.... and..... make 'em ~fast~."

um.

...

ummmmm.

y'all get why that wouldn't improve things, right?

the major vulns we ran into super recently weren't the fault of ~anything~ architectural. the "architecture" was ~fine~.

it was the fault of the things that people did / needed to do to implement those architectures ~fast~.

and that goes for ~anyone~.

ya know?

@gdkar i think i disagree but i'm having trouble fitting words around it

@gdkar i feel like this is just a semantic argument around whether 'architecture' encompasses the full approach to processor implementation or just the ISA? and that doesn't seem very meaningful to me in this case. i like your next thread though

@cascode yeah, i guess that's kinda the thing.

like. when people are like "oh, but we should use z80s, those're safe."

or, heck, we should use Power architectures or whatever.

you can implement those to be vulnerable or not vulnerable. the ISA doesn't ~care~.

so you gotta be thinking about that, or you'll inevitably fall into the same situations? i think?

@cascode ( caveat: bringing things up to speed _now_ in the, like, post moore's law period, it might entirely be easier to do the "not doing OOO/speculative stuff" thing.

but.

also, like, some of the older atoms and the xeon phi and whatever did that on amd64, ya know? )