I'd hope maybe, just maybe, this would be enough to put a focus on compilers producing code that ends up using processor-optimized paths chosen at runtime, to avoid "overheads ranging from 10% to 50%".
Though, in this case, that would essentially mean making the entire executable region writable for some window of time, which is clearly too dangerous, so I guess the 0.1% speedups from compiling undefined behavior in new and interesting ways, will continue taking priority.
I mean, it's a compiler flag right, obviously whoever's going to run a program on an unaffected platform will take the effort to recompile everything with the flag removed.
Just the same way every serious application currently provides different executables for running on systems where SSE2, SSE4.1, or AVX2 is present.
For example, glibc chooses optimised machine code for memcpy depending on the CPU it runs on.
When this all shakes out, the general story is going to be "upgrade sooner, current-gen Intel chips are x% faster", where x is going to be a larger number than it was a week ago.
It's more-or-less the Apple battery story all over again. Current devices are going to be slower, newer ones are going to be faster. Even if you know the why and the how, you're still in the same place as everybody else (at best, you could upgrade just the chip if your MB is new enough, but you're still buying Intel). Unless there's some clear way of imposing the external cost of this bug on Intel, it's a win-win for them.
Because this isn't really that new nor is it really a bug. Meltdown could be a bug because the asynchronous access of memory in other protection rings is unsafe, but the rest of it is just a normal side-channel attack, an abuse of otherwise-innocent data.
How much moral culpability should rest on the proprietors of software virtualization technologies that don't really safely encapsulate anything due to hardware incongruencies with the modern "sandboxed computing" model?
Surely there have been engineers over the years who've questioned the propriety of misleading users into seeing VMs as fully-encapsulated systems when the hardware just fundamentally doesn't support that type of native encapsulation. Such persons have probably spent the last several years being shunned for being old fogies overly attached to their rust buckets. It'd be interesting to hear some of their stories.
If you know then you at least have the option to turn off PTI and compile your performance-critical binaries without retpoline.
And maybe disable microcode updates if intel's updates eat another few percent.
Ryzen 1700X has 3.3 times the multicore performance of my i5 3450 from 2012 for almost the same price. With 7nm we will see at least another 50% increase in multicore performance on top of that.
