Talk:Lazy FP state restore

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Name of article

Kia ora. I have named the article "Lazy FPU state leak". There are many names being used for the vulnerability on the web (try searching for "CVE-2018-3665" in your search engine of choice to see what I mean), at least as of 18 June 2018. The name seemingly used by Intel is "Lazy FP State Restore", but that seems to be the name of the operating system technique which relies on the vulnerable hardware feature, and is not the name of the vulnerability itself (see this). I think the distinction is worth making, since the operating system lazy FPU implementations are not flawed themselves (as far as I know), but rather the underlying hardware is faulty. If anyone disagrees with my choice of article title, feel free to say so. Kiwi128 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora ano. Please note that I have just proposed renaming the article to LazyFP, see here. The rationale I gave was:

"LazyFP" is the name for the "Lazy FPU state leak" used by the discoverers (see https://blog.cyberus-technology.de/posts/2018-06-06-intel-lazyfp-vulnerability.html). The proposed name also probably gets around the concerns mentioned on the talk page related to naming conventions: it is an authoritative name that does not confuse various related aspects of the security issue. Note that LazyFP is a redirect page that currently points to a related topic.

Regards Kiwi128 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: for the time being, move the page to Lazy FP state restore at this time per the discussion below. A new proposal can be started at any time with evidence showing that another title is in common use. Dekimasuよ! 16:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy FPU state leak → LazyFP – "LazyFP" is the name for the "Lazy FPU state leak" used by the discoverers (see https://blog.cyberus-technology.de/posts/2018-06-06-intel-lazyfp-vulnerability.html). The proposed name also probably gets around the concerns mentioned on the talk page related to naming conventions: it is an authoritative name that does not confuse various related aspects of the security issue. Note that LazyFP is a redirect page that currently points to a related topic. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I moved the request to contested technical requests because Intel names this flaw "Lazy FPU state restore" [1]. While Intel did not discover the flaw, it affects only their processors, and given their size, I think, this will be the name that sticks in the end. I consider "LazyFP" to be an abbreviation (of either long form). In either case, we should have redirects from all naming variants to the target article.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to "Lazy FP State Restore" is fine with me. (Note that Intel uses "FP" not "FPU".) If that turns out not to be the name that sticks, we can rename again. I note that it does seem like the "LazyFP" name isn't widely used on the web, currently. Regards. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nothing from the technical PDF from researchers?

The description of the vulnerability doesn't seems to be accurate at all. It doesn't seems to be consistent with what is said in the technical paper from researchers that discovered Lazy FP state restore.

Link here : https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07480 Referenced by the following article from Cyberus too : https://blog.cyberus-technology.de/posts/2018-06-06-intel-lazyfp-vulnerability.html

Either it's completely false, or it needs a really good amount of rework to make it more accurate and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.221.22 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]