Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Posted Nov 18, 2023 14:02 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: Intel's "redundant prefix issue" by brunowolff
Parent article: Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Their attitude wrt embedded firmware _is_ irrational, in that it directly impedes progress towards other FSF goals, and is predicated on preconditions that were nonsense at the time, and are even more so today.
(For example, this greatly impedes Freedom 1; because it makes it much, much more difficult to study how the device works, and can make it effectively impossible to make changes)
> You have previously noted some isolated cases of companies gaming the FSF's ratings. But that doesn't justify referring to the FSF as crazy.
It's not isolated cases; it's the logical outcome of the RYF metrics. Vendors take off-the-shelf components that use non-free Firmware (ie nearly everything produced in the last decade) and proceed to intentionally cripple it by removing firmware-applied runtime updates (eg CPU microcode updates), physically cut write enables on embedded flash parts, and/or add dedicated processors (themselves running non-free Firmware) whose sole job it is to upload the necessary, now-non-updateable firmware into the hardware from non-user-accessible storage without the primary, user-accessible CPU being involved in some way.
Again, this isn't "gaming" the system; the FSF explicitly endorses products that follow this approach, _because_ they follow this approach.
In none of these scenarios is the firmware magically freed. In none of these scenarios does the non-free firmware go away. It just gets wrapped in a brown paper bag that hides it from the primary CPU (and user), which somehow makes it "okay".
All three approaches increase the product complexity (and thus cost) and leave the user with an objectively _worse_ product, usually with known (but already-fixed-upstream) issues at the time of release! Saying that the manufacturer "should have tested better" is all fine and good, but is even more divorced from reality -- Every release of decades-old FSF-produced software still has bugs, sometimes severe ones, and that doesn't even begin to touch on the likes of Spectre and other information-leaking bugs in the processors themselves.
Posted Nov 18, 2023 16:28 UTC (Sat)
by brunowolff (guest, #71160)
[Link] (19 responses)
There are plausible arguments that their polices might moderate future behavior. The polices have a rational basis. They aren't irrational. You can certainly argue they haven't been effective and have even had some undesired effects. Eventually one might make a case that by not adapting tactics they have moved into the realm of irrationallity. However, I don't think the FSF is in a good position to influence changes in how firmware is handled. They don't have enough influence to make a big enough dent in the big players profits to change their behavior. And they aren't selective enough and don't provide enough resources to encourage companies that are trying to actually change how things are done to achieve much with new players. It's not something you can just code your way out of, like at application level. They don't have obvious good alternative strategies to try to affect significant changes here with the resources they have.
I think if you want to affect change in this area, you need to build better hardware or support people that do that. There are several groups working on that. But without economy of scale, it isn't going to be cheap. And it isn't likely to get scale any time soon. It's not like at the higher level, where writing some free software application could rapidly improve things for a lot of people. Also, even if a significant player develops, there are going to be incentives to switch back to locking things down to make more money. In publicly owned companies, it can be really hard to not do what makes the most short term profit. So the long term outlook seems poor. But, I'm willing to spend some money encouraging companies that I think are moving things in my preferred direction.
Posted Nov 18, 2023 17:29 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (18 responses)
What's is irrational are not policies, but FSF. When something doesn't work you change it — that's the basis of rational behavior. If your policy doesn't work and instead of promoting devices which are modern, easy to tinker with and easy to modify it promotes something that is obsolete and, essentially, second-hand from market of normal, locked-down, devices then you are doing something wrong. They are not in good position to influence anything, at this point. Well… not quite (they have some captive audience in the form of emacs users, but these are becoming more and more rare, almost everything else is replaceable, at this point), but they are moving there. Just ask yourself: why does GlibC released in year 2023 is still licensed under LGPLv2, not LGPLv3? The answer is simple: FSF doesn't dare to change it's license, because this would just cause a fork. And GCC wasn't forked solely because when GCC 4.3 switched the license the plan for the people who refused with FSFs stance already was to just dump GCC entirely and go with clang. That's really sad because, at one point FSF had an ear of many developers. But not anymore. Look here, e.g. Lots of folks express their ire that someone else rewrites coreutils and doesn't use GPL… but have that produced anything constructive? Yes. And that means that you recommend to buy GPUs from AMD and Intel, and not from nVidia. That hurts even trillion-dollar companies enough that they change things to ensure their blobs are less invasive. That's a win. Encouraging people to cripple their distro to make sure it would adhere to some kind of strange of definition of freedom? This just hurst everyone. If Debian would have done 20 years ago what it finally did last year then chances are high that people would have stayed with Debian instead of creating bazillion forks like Ubuntu or LinuxMint. I often wonder how and why FSF went from XX century if you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough—you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal; in other words, you need to be “pragmatic.” to current joke of stance where it does things that don't work and ignores the reality.
I guess the seed of insanity was always there, e.g. FSF always insisted that FSF-endorsed free software shouldn't even mention anything proprietary, but that was more of “harmless quirk” similar to how Intel, to this very day, refuses to accept the fact that it's CPUs are implementing AMD-designed x86-64 technology and instead insists that it's Intel-invented ia-32e technology. Today that seed, somehow, expanded enough that the whole thing turned into, increasingly irrelevant, cult which lives in the imaginary world.
Posted Nov 18, 2023 18:10 UTC (Sat)
by brunowolff (guest, #71160)
[Link] (17 responses)
> What's is irrational are not policies, but FSF. When something doesn't work you change it — that's the basis of rational behavior.
That assumes that there is something obviously better to change to. I don't think this is the case here, Certainly not to the level of referring to them as irrational. I don't think anything they do is likely to have much affect on firmware at this point.
>> But, I'm willing to spend some money encouraging companies that I think are moving things in my preferred direction.
While I don't buy nVidia video cards, I don't think that will have an effect on nVidia. They have a lot of lock in and they aren't going to want to give that up. I'm not really fans of either AMD or Intel. Though I think AMD's behavior is constrained by what they need to do to stay in business and employees had made some upfront statements about that.
I really think who you buy hardware from is a lot more important than who you don't but it from. To change things at the hardware level requires money (more so than software, where time can help) and that means that to affect change you need to be spending money or giving it to others to spend,
> I often wonder how and why FSF went from XX century if you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough—you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal; in other words, you need to be “pragmatic.” to current joke of stance where it does things that don't work and ignores the reality.
That is very case dependent. In a lot of situations, if everyone is pragmatic, nothing changes. Lot's of things have changed since the FSF started. Hardware can now use crypto to control what software it runs. Hardware documentation at the level needed for writing firmware, often isn't publicly available. There is a bunch of as a service stuff. Their old methods don't work well for starting changes in the current environment. And they never had enough leverage, to use that to affect change using boycotts.
> I guess the seed of insanity was always there, e.g. FSF always insisted that FSF-endorsed free software shouldn't even mention anything proprietary, but that was more of “harmless quirk” similar to how Intel, to this very day, refuses to accept the fact that it's CPUs are implementing AMD-designed x86-64 technology and instead insists that it's Intel-invented ia-32e technology. Today that seed, somehow, expanded enough that the whole thing turned into, increasingly irrelevant, cult which lives in the imaginary world.
I think fanatic or uncompromising would be a better description of this than insanity.
Posted Nov 18, 2023 18:45 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
There are obviously better approaches! However, the first step to figuring out which is better is admitting/acknowledging that your current approach is not working (if not outright counterproductive). Instead, they are doubling/tripling-down on an approach that is failing (by *any* metric), in part because it is predicated on a make-believe [1] worldview that is quite simply, demonstrably-many-times-over, _wrong_.
> I think fanatic or uncompromising would be a better description of this than insanity.
Insanity is one of the underpinnings of fanaticism.
[1] As long as "hardware" implementation is hidden from the user's view, they can pretend it's hard-wired immutable logic and thus ethically acceptable. Key word: pretend.
Posted Nov 18, 2023 19:54 UTC (Sat)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (14 responses)
Boycott is not the only way to change things and it's not the most productive, either. You said so yourself: And now this: Seriously? Do you know how GCC have become first C and then C++ “standards-de-facto”? That was Cygnus, not FSF's, work. And X Window System won over NeWS and other such proprietary systems with help of Gtk and Qt. And now we have that issue with secret microcode being needed to run free software (a lot of free software wouldn't be usable on CPUs from before-upgradeable microcode era, that's 80386 or 486 at most). What do free software zealots like FSF do about that? Ah, right, complain that someone else have to give them everything. Now, that's, of course, real problem and it needs fixing. And it's in process of being fixed — using precisely the same old methods that Cygnus was using, that XFree86 hackers were using, that Qt developers were using. On the contrary: if you are trying to repeat things that don't work then nothing changes. While pragmatic approach works, like it always did. You just need to try enough different things to succeed in the end. The more I think about it the more it looks as if the collapse of FSF infuence is related to “free software”/“open source divorce” that happened at the end of XX century. FSF in XX century had a lot of influence that it didn't earn. Simply because lots of people were doing free software while FSF kinds of usurped the term all the influence that Cygnus, Linux companies, TeX community and others had… FSF had the ability to piggy-back on that and look big and powerful. And then… FSF pushed for divorce. It happened. And after that point FSF have become what it always was: small, not too significant by itself, organization without means to achieve what it pushed for. Ironic, isn't it? ESR wasn't trying to kill FSF, he (and others who joined him) just wanted to double down on what actually works and hide things that doesn't work — but RMS, perceptive, as he is, realized that this would be the end of his personal reign. And thus, instead of gradually losing control over FSF, he bet on it's ability to bring control back… and lost everything. Not the first and not the last time that happened, IBM lost control over IBM PC in a very similar way. Only IBM realized it's mistake and after failure of PS/2 it went to create PS/1, ThinkPad using things that it tried to squeeze out, while FSF, after GPLv3 fiasco, just continues to move deeper and deeper into irrelevancy. If they couldn't do anything then should just accept that and do things that they could do. Like Debian finally did, after decades of making life of newbies miserable. But Debian did kinda-not-insane thing from the beginning: they always were making and publishing “unofficial” images that were made sanely, they just tried to hide them a bit. Probably, but note this: a more informal use of the term insanity is to denote something or someone considered highly unique, passionate or extreme, including in a positive sense. I would argue that if you use word “insane” according to that definition then “fanatic” or “uncompromising” just become two different kinds of insanity. I fully agree that FSF members are not insane in a narrow, “a danger to themselves or to other people”, definition. But FSF behavior is hard to call sane, sorry. Whether it's “insane in a positive sense” or not remains an exercise to the reader.
Posted Nov 20, 2023 1:12 UTC (Mon)
by dvdeug (guest, #10998)
[Link] (1 responses)
Except life isn't that simple. Very rarely do things just work or not work; usually all available systems have known problems and unknown problems. People and companies who change course at the slightest bit of trouble often fail to achieve anything. The question of whether you're doubling down on a system that could work or throwing away money and effort on a system that's already a failure is hard to tell in the moment, and it's often hard to tell even in hindsight if whether a different action would have worked better, especially when fighting entrenched powerful systems.
> And X Window System won over NeWS and other such proprietary systems with help of Gtk and Qt.
Just your links alone disprove that. The NeWS article says that NeWS was dead "just as Virtuoso became ready to ship" and "after Adobe acquired FrameMaker, Sun stopped supporting NeWS", which puts its end in 1995-1996 and its death throes before that, but QT's first release was in October 1995, too late to have much impact, and GTK's first release was in 1998, clearly after NeWS's death. (The "Oracle Solaris" article says that Sun dropped NeWS in Solaris 2.3, which other sources give as August 1993, which would make clearly before QT released.)
Posted Nov 20, 2023 8:01 UTC (Mon)
by joib (subscriber, #8541)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2023 13:11 UTC (Mon)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (11 responses)
As for the discussion, some people seem quite fanatical about taking offense at the FSFs' RYF policy. (Does the high-level intent make sense, yes; does the policy have holes, surely; could it be improved, hard to say... possibly, or possibly not... it depends).
Posted Nov 20, 2023 14:13 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (10 responses)
If having objective, demonstrable facts to back up my criticism (and suggestions for improvements) of a well-intended policy makes me a fanatic, so be it.
1) Yes, the high-level intent not only makes sense but is IMO a very good thing!
The current RYF program demonstrably results in objectively _worse_ outcomes by every non-holier-than-thou metric. An earlier thread on this subject included multiple suggestions on how to improve the policy, grounding it in modern hardware reality while still remaining true to the spirit of the Four Freedoms. But the FSF refuses to even _listen_, further costing it respect and many would-be allies.
BTW, I say this as someone who's a dues-paying member of the FSF that is very much on the idealistic "Free Software" side of the F/OSS divide. I've also written a _lot_ of Libre device drivers to enable use of said hardware on Libre platforms, allowing entire industry verticals to ditch proprietary software entirely. This should be a GoodThing(tm), yet literally _none_ of the hardware I've worked on for the past two decades could _ever_ qualify under the current RYF program as they all contain some sort of embedded firmware that can be updated at runtime.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 10:13 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (9 responses)
On 3, the issue is it is not obvious now. The goal is great - everyone seems agreed - the problem is implementing a policy. I suspect every policy the FSF could have for RYF will have major holes, and hence every policy will be open to angry criticism on forums - some simply as a vehicle for general FSF hate. Farnz' ideas on tiered certification might be a good improvement. Who knows.
The root issue here is there isn't a perfect policy.
Even if tiers would be better now, that doesn't mean the original policy was wrong - just that it turned out there were more subtleties to it, and it needed gradations - but shooting for the moon with the original policy may still have been the right policy at that time.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 10:45 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
No. RYF certification arrived in 2012. By that time it was much too late. GPLv3 fiasco was well underway. So FSF knew it's influence is pretty limited. And, worse, hardware manufacturers have already changed their development model to incorporate upgradeable firmware (that happened around the beginning of XX century, I remember how I bought the same Socket 370 motherboard in different revisions and while original one had “flash write enable” pins and one v2.0 it was no longer there… means MSI tech support complained enough that it was removed). Yes, it was an interesting attempt to turn the tide (same as GPLv3), but at some point sane person would realize that it failed and would change the stance. Right now FSF is fighting Paraguayan War and while it loses not lives buy “only” a mindshare consequences are dire: from someone who was respected and had lots of allies (even if not allies agreed on everything) they turned into someone who is not ignored entirely in the mainstream IT field only because it holds copyright for some important projects and you couldn't fix bug in these projects without assigning copyright to FSF. And even that chokehold is slowly eroding.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 14:19 UTC (Tue)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (1 responses)
There are other forces at work here. Since devices sold to the public must have a two years warranty, if any serious bugs are found (as they will) the manufacturer has to fix it and given the choice between pushing a software update and replacing the device, the former is much cheaper. And additionally, pushing a update reduces the amount of electronic waste, for which there are also regulations.
Changes afoot making it harder to disclaim warranty for security issues in software is only going to accelerate this trend.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 14:37 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
These are minor details. Of course hardware manufacturers have changed their development model to save money! That's what businesses do. And if you understand that then the next question that you should ask is: how may they earn some money from getting that RYF mark? Taking existing hardware with proprietary firmware, crippling it and selling it at higher prices is profitable. Developing hardware and open firmware just to get RYF mark is not. It's as simple as that. Now, you may play with these rules, try to make it more profitable for hardware manufacturers to use your free software instead of writing your own software (that's how Linux have become indispensable). And then, when certain classes of devices would become available with free firmware — you may demand these these have to come with free firmware. Or you may just ignore Goodhart's law and get the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. I can understand why FSF doesn't want to change rules of GPL: it's hard and costly to do and often backfires. But “certification marks”? It's completely normal for the certification mark rules to change over time, it's more-or-less inevitable because of Goodhart's law! Yet FSF acts as if it may design something that works once and for all. Worse: it believes that precisely ignorance of economics would help them to achieve their goals, somehow.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 10:49 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (3 responses)
According to the FSF in 2014, my ideas are not an improvement - the FSF's policy is so great that by 2020, all firmware will be Free software.
I leave it to you to look around and determine if that's actually happened - and part of the problem here is that, having missed their original expectations for the policy, the FSF is not looking to see if a different policy might work better. That a policy has failed to meet expectations is one thing; that the FSF is not changing the policy is the problem. This is doubly problematic because the FSF has guiding principles (the four essential freedoms), and the policy enshrines cases where those principles are overriden by pragmatism to get a result that has not happened; the FSF should, if it were still the organisation I remember from the 1990s, either change the policy and accept a different pragmatic deficiency, or fall back to the principles and say that RYF will no longer certify devices with non-Free firmware, accepting that this reduces RYF hardware further.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 13:37 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
They couldn't do that. They like to claim that the FSF members, themselves, only use 100% RYF devices. But there are no storage devices with non-free software on the market today. All the HDDs, all the SSDs and all SD cards include non-free firmware. I think the last devices not to include firmware were old RLL HDDs manufactured more than 20 years ago. And I'm pretty sure they are not using these. Of course most of such devices (if not all!) can upgrade that firmware “in the field”. And it's non-free. Which is in direct contradiction to stated rules, but can be easily fixed: just cripple the device, make sure firmware couldn't be updated and voila: you have RYF device. Instead of accepting that reality and trying to see what can be done in this new reality they keep RYF in the state which allows them to perpetuate their lie of only using free software. If you view FSF as religious cult which values the ability to claim that practice what they preach then this stance is pragmatic. But I, for one, is not ready to accept such thing as my religion. And they are not even formally framing it as such, they tell us that this St IGNUcius stunt was just a joke. I probably would have respected them more if they actually tried to portray what they are doing as a religion, complete with temples, imaginary gods and maybe some ritual sacrifices. But they are acting as a cult while simultaneously preaching how they are all about practical advantages.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 14:53 UTC (Tue)
by brunowolff (guest, #71160)
[Link] (1 responses)
While from a free software viewpoint this isn't going to change any time soon, from an owner control viewpoint, you can mitigate against hostile storage devices. While they can execute denial of service attacks against your system, you can keep them from reading the data being stored on them by using encryption. Some traffic analysis attacks will still be possible, but those should be a lot less damaging. If you use them to provide data for early boot, before you can use encrypted data, you can use digital signatures to make sure your system is being provided good data. You'll need to be extra carefull about replay attacks of old versions of the boot data. They could alo try to exploit driver bugs to compromise your system. Mostly, you don't want to trust encryption built into the drive or assume you can erase everything written to it. If you are getting individually targetted by hostile hard drives, you are probably dealing with an adversary you're going to lose to.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 15:14 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Sure. And that work would be much more useful then pretence that work of someone who takes devices with potentially-hostile firmware and cuts the wire to make sure further updates are no longer possible (which magically turns it into “Respects Your Freedom” device) is, somehow, beneficial to your privacy.
Posted Nov 21, 2023 14:31 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
No, it was wrong at the time and they were told so at the time.
By the time this landed in 2014, a majority of hardware (and _all_ newish designs) required some sort of embedded firmware, and making it runtime-updateable was a highly sound business and engineering practice. Given the still-increasing complexity of hardware designs, there is no turning back that clock.
Also by the time this landed in 2014, it was clear to everyone (but the FSF) that the FSF's industry influence was way, way less than they believed -- Indeed, seven years after the GPLv3 landed, instead of enabling their devices to be user-modifiable, device makers stuck with old GPLv2 versions long enough to write their own permissively-licensed replacements. [1]
And then there's the logically absurd stance that claims that devices with immutable proprietary firmware are somehow "freer" than ones that can be updated, as the latter at least has the potential for libre firmware. This make-believe farce completely alienated the folks that have been doing the actual "hardware lberation" [2] work all along, resulting in the entire RYF initiative to devolve into nothing more than a virtue signaling exercise.
[1] Device makers that ever cared about licensing, that is. Most of the stuff churned out by Chinese OEMs has _never_ complied with the GPL.
[2] eg reverse engineering hardware and proprietary software/firmware, writing Libre device drivers, and other such tasks that enable folks to run free software on hardware they already own. ie GNU's entire raison d'etre!)
Posted Nov 21, 2023 14:43 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Just to be clear, I don't fault them with trying something that failed; what I take issue with is that they are _still_ doubling down on a policy that has accomplished nothing beyond harming their cause.
(well, aside from the virtue-signaling aspects. Which is even more damning if that is all they apparently care about...)
Posted Nov 20, 2023 11:22 UTC (Mon)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
I disagree with you; I have put the following in e-mail to the FSF in 2014 as an alternative approach, and been told that RMS believes that the FSF's influence on hardware vendors is sufficiently strong that the current approach will work better, because hardware vendors will fight to get an FSF RYF certification under the current rules:
Rather than a ban on replaceable firmware, the FSF should endorse a set of requirements on firmware downloading that make replacement of the firmware with a Free version possible, given enough time and interest; I would suggest doing this by having at least 2 tiers of RYF, derived from the FSF's "four essential freedoms". The higher tier requires firmware that is fully Free per the four essential freedoms, including source code; the lower tier is for firmware that has no source, but where you are otherwise permitted to exercise the four essential freedoms; notably, this means that I should be entitled to run the vendor-supplied firmware inside an emulator or a reverse-engineering tool (freedom 0), study how it works and change it, including running my modified version on the hardware I've purchased (freedom 1, with source code precondition removed), redistribute copies without further obligation (freedom 2), and share any modifications I make (freedom 3, with source code precondition removed).
If you wanted to permit fully proprietary firmware (as the current policy does), there's also room for an even lower tier, where the vendor blocks freedom 3 completely; this leaves you with me being entitled to study the vendor supplied firmware, change it and run the modified version on my hardware, and redistribute copies of the vendor firmware as-is. This is a baby step towards the goal of a fully Free system, since it now explicitly allows a vendor to take away essential freedoms, but still requires them to permit me to replace the firmware myself, and to do the work needed to understand the hardware well enough to write a completely Free replacement firmware not derived from their original code.
There's been no shift in the last 9 years from vendors, nor from the FSF; there comes a point where the FSF either needs to accept that a policy doesn't work, and choose a new one, or decide to double-down on "the rest of the world is wrong". It appears to be doing the latter.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
> Their attitude wrt embedded firmware _is_ irrational, in that it directly impedes progress towards other FSF goals, and is predicated on preconditions that were nonsense at the time, and are even more so today.
> They aren't irrational.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
> Yes. And that means that you recommend to buy GPUs from AMD and Intel, and not from nVidia. That hurts even trillion-dollar companies enough that they change things to ensure their blobs are less invasive. That's a win.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
> And they never had enough leverage, to use that to affect change using boycotts.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
2) The policy is predicated on a naive-to-the-point-of-delusional definition of "hardware", and deliberately promotes/encourages solutions that, on their face, run counter to the FSF's goal of user empowerment through software freedom.
3) It can absolutely be improved, but only if the FSF is willing.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
> but shooting for the moon with the original policy may still have been the right policy at that time.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
> or fall back to the principles and say that RYF will no longer certify devices with non-Free firmware, accepting that this reduces RYF hardware further.
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"
Intel's "redundant prefix issue"