Intel Ice Lake CPUs Have a System Crashing Bug

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,875
More bugs, where does it end if ever

"Thanks to community testing, we have found out that these issues are not just a software bug, however, it is a rather CPU specific bug that only occurs on Intel Ice Lake processors. Intel recently updated the CPU microcode and there is no improvement. It seems like the IntelliJ IDE has a specific sequence of instructions that trigger Ice Lake CPUs to crash OS. This behavior is concerning as this could be used for a possible exploit. Again, cloud providers are at risk here as if you crash the system the whole instance could crash. Of course server Ice Lake parts are yet to arrive, but the bug could be hidden in the core of the CPU design. Even with the latest microcode update Ice Lake CPUs are still crashing with this software, so we have to see how Intel responds to this."'

https://www.techpowerup.com/268479/intel-ice-lake-cpus-have-a-system-crashing-bug
 
Sounds like a new aggressive power saving feature.
So that means you could remotely crash a whole PC. So for virtual servers, would it just crash the VM or the whole server hosting the VMs???
 
Rockenrooster said:
Sounds like a new aggressive power saving feature.
So that means you could remotely crash a whole PC. So for virtual servers, would it just crash the VM or the whole server hosting the VMs???
Click to expand...

Sounds like the latter to me.

Jeez. Intel can't seem to catch a break lately. It's just one thing after another.

If they weren't the big evil company known for its illegal business practices and trying to subdue competition through deepest pockets bogus lawsuits, I'd almost feel badly.

I'm not one to believe in the concept of karma, but there is some poetic justice in this whole ordeal...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sounds like the latter to me.

Jeez. Intel can't seem to catch a break lately. It's just one thing after another.

If they weren't the big evil company known for its illegal business practices and trying to subdue competition through deepest pockets bogus lawsuits, I'd almost feel badly.

I'm not one to believe in the concept of karma, but there is some poetic justice in this whole ordeal...
Click to expand...
Makes you think is Intel really too big to fall?
If they keep this up they just might
 
Perhaps Tiger Lake will fix this?
As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
 
erek said:
Intel just might be too big to fail though, like really

right?
Click to expand...
Unless they can ride on the revenue of x86 royalties and their forced vendor lock-in with their platforms into the next decade, I would say things aren't looking up for them at this point.
It would seem that, at this point, Intel's biggest enemy is Intel (upper management) itself, and unless it can start taking care of basic things, it is going to be taken down, death by 1000 cuts style.
 
Last edited:
Red Falcon said:
Unless they can ride on the revenue of x86-64 royalties and their forced vendor lock-in with their platforms into the next decade, I would say things aren't looking up for them at this point.
It would seem that, at this point, Intel's biggest enemy is Intel (upper management) itself, and unless it can start taking care of basic things, it is going to be taken down, death by 1000 cuts style.
Click to expand...

yah, seems lame that with Gen graphics that Upper Management didn't want a High End GPU from them
 
Even if Intel drops out the CPU buisness they still no going anywhere. Intel has their hands in a lot more things then just CPUs. They certainly would be down sided but still be around.
 
Red Falcon said:
Unless they can ride on the revenue of x86-64 royalties and their forced vendor lock-in with their platforms into the next decade...
Click to expand...
AMD owns x86-64, not Intel. Intel tried to push IA64 instructions and it didnt go well, the market kept the x86 compatibility they got with x86-64 and so Intel was forced to switch.
 
EniGmA1987 said:
AMD owns x86-64, not Intel. Intel tried to push IA64 instructions and it didnt go well, the market kept the x86 compatibility they got with x86-64 and so Intel was forced to switch.
Click to expand...

The part that I don't fully have a grasp on is to what extent x86-64 depends on IA32.

In other words, as 32 bit software becomes older and older, and at some point we decide we no longer need 32bit hardware compatibility, could AMD manufacture AMD-64 chips without licensing anything from Intel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top