From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 14 05:34:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA28359 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:34:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from algw1.lucent.com (algw1.lucent.com [205.147.213.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA28354 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:34:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmobrien@algw1.lucent.com) Received: from nmcoma.netminder.lucent.com by alig1.firewall.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2) id IAA07286; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:41:43 -0500 Received: from lucent.com by nmcoma.netminder.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2) id IAA24449; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: <346C52F8.ADF4D658@lucent.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:32:40 -0500 From: "Dan O'Brien" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: [Fwd: Pentium bug: FreeBSD workaround ?] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B65F27E85DB1D044A31810D1" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B65F27E85DB1D044A31810D1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just for the record. Here is the posting. His reasoning is rational and clear. I support his "wait and see" attitude. Thanks, Dan O'Brien (dmobrien@lucent.com) Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs Innovations, Columbus OH 43213 Internal URL: External URL: Work: 614-860-2392 Home: 614-927-2178 Fax: 614-868-3810 Home2: 614-927-2955 ------------------------------------------------------ --------------B65F27E85DB1D044A31810D1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Path: nntphub.cb.lucent.com!uunet!in5.uu.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Pentium bug: FreeBSD workaround ? Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:13:31 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Message-ID: <346B272B.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> References: <64ckdr$2gg_002@cris.com> <64diac$k7t$3@otis.netspace.net.au> <346ADA14.C167CFD7@domgen.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: 879437616 7114 jkh 206.86.0.12 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.5-STABLE i386) To: tri@iki.fi Xref: nntphub.cb.lucent.com comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:54115 [posted and mailed] Timo J Rinne wrote: > You understood wrong. The patch makes idt entries 0-6 to point to > unmapped space. Then pagefault handler resolves, whether it's really > a pagefault or should it forward call to the corresponding exception > handler. > > The patch should go into machdep.c and locore.s or trap.c in > /sys/i386/i386 and it of course should be optional. > > Is someone working on this or should I do it? Well, several things to note here: 1. BSDI would appear to have *withdrawn* the patch which they released to great fanfare yesterday. This is disturbing and merits closer attention before we make any moves ourselves. 2. Our principal architect has reviewed the Linux patch that someone forwarded to us and he considers it, to use his own words, "a totally disgusting hack." Let's make sure that in our haste to deal with this latest political football, we don't come up with a cure that's worse than the disease. I also hasten to note that I've yet to hear *any* reports of serious DoS attacks stemming from this bug, this being in all likelyhood another FDIV-type situation where people who wouldn't be affected in a million years by the bug are nonetheless steaming about it as if Intel had shot their dog and raped their mothers. I think folks need to put this in perspective and stop this silly scare-mongering over it - this is hardly a critical emergency and I suspect that many of the folks who are racing to implement a solution simply so that they can claim the dubious distinction of "solving it first" are only going to end up going back over their fixes later, perhaps to do as BSDI has done in throwing out the first attempt. Let's at least wait for Intel to release full details of their proposed work-around in a day or two as they've promised, eh? Again, if I were hearing anguished cries from the ISPs about this then it would be a different matter, but I haven't heard so much as a squeak from them and this would all appear to be simply another chicken little episode, with various people running around flapping and squawking simply because it makes them feel important to be given the opportunity to run around and flap about something. :-) -- - Jordan Hubbard FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM. --------------B65F27E85DB1D044A31810D1--