Ok, well I think that last line of yours is a bit insulting to be honest, but let's just do this then:Designs are a philosophy. Implementation is where bugs come in. Previously you seemed to claim it can't be a bug because of manufacturing? Manufacturing is no more "implementation" (of a design concept) than compiling a program is. Both can be perfect and the end products still contain bugs. Since intel designed their CPUs to separate memory systems and they failed to properly implement their designs it's a bug.
Frankly I don't think you understand the concept, and I think others are just here to try control the narrative. Neither of which I can change, all I can do is add my 2c.
Tell me what design decision/intent Intel failed to properly implement.
Mind you, I'm not talking about describing how this attack works, I'm talking about the deliberate intentional design of Intel, described by you, which isn't working properly, and just how it isn't working as designed.
(To use a poor analogy: From what I can tell it's as if Intel designed a car that can provide natural fresh air inside without air conditioning. It does this by not having the door-windows go up all the way, thus enabling air flow. When driving the car it works as designed. Someone then decides to slip a piece of string into parked cars and loop it around the locking mechanism thereby unlocking the door and stealing the car. That's not a "bug". That's a design decision that is flawed. A bug would have been if the decided intended design didn't work as planned because of an improper implementation (i.e. the window actually goes all the way up instead of stopping short, despite the design)).....