From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 9 01:08:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA25513 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:08:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from unix.tfs.net (root@unix.tfs.net [199.79.146.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25501 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:08:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jbryant@argus.tfs.net) Received: from argus.tfs.net (pm3-p2.tfs.net [206.154.183.194]) by unix.tfs.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA13934; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:07:15 -0600 Received: (from jbryant@localhost) by argus.tfs.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA05745; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:08:16 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Bryant Message-Id: <199711090908.DAA05745@argus.tfs.net> Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) In-Reply-To: from Charles Mott at "Nov 8, 97 10:06:59 pm" To: cmott@srv.net (Charles Mott) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:08:14 -0600 (CST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Reply-to: jbryant@tfs.net X-Windows: R00LZ!@# MS-Winbl0wz DR00LZ!@# X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 2.2.2-RELEASE #0: Wed Jul 9 01:01:24 CDT 1997 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In reply: > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Howard Lew wrote: > > > > For Windows users this bug should not be much of a problem unless viruses > > start popping up taking advantage of the bug. For FreeBSD it is not very > > comforting to know that any misbehaving user can lock up your shell > > machine, but in a controlled environment this should not be a problem. > > > > Possibly also systems where users are allowed to put executable > CGI-invoked code on their web pages (although usually such users > also have shell accounts). > > This could be bad for Intel. I think that there is a limited > subset of Pentium owners which now have a *very* strong incentive > to obtain replacement chips or go to alternate vendors (AMD or > IDT). this is going to be a real nightmare for intel... how many pentiums are out there, and i'm begionning to notice a lot of pentium-specific stuff out there now. the instruction seqquence in question seems to me to be a type that will be in widespread use in the very near future. to compare and exchange a 64 bit number is pretty fundamental, but still pentium specific. with the forward push for pentium specific programs, this will become more and more of a problem... hmmmm.... 100+ million pissed off customers... just imagine the logistics of a recall.... jim -- All opinions expressed are mine, if you | "I will not be pushed, stamped, think otherwise, then go jump into turbid | briefed, debriefed, indexed, or radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!! | numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inet: jbryant@tfs.net AX.25: kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam grid: EM28pw voice: KC5VDJ - 6 & 2 Meters AM/FM/SSB, 70cm FM. http://www.tfs.net/~jbryant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HF/6M/2M: IC-706-MkII, 2M: HTX-212, 2M: HTX-202, 70cm: HTX-404, Packet: KPC-3+