Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:09:15 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Joe Eykholt <jre@ipsilon.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Pentium Bug fix (proposed) Message-ID: <19971114230915.12485@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <346D17BA.1B37ADEA@ipsilon.com>; from Joe Eykholt on Nov 11, 1997 at 07:32:10PM -0800 References: <199711150115.RAA18627@hub.freebsd.org> <346D17BA.1B37ADEA@ipsilon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 11, 1997 at 07:32:10PM -0800, Joe Eykholt wrote: > One point, though. The segment length is at least one byte > since the limit in the descriptor is the last valid offset > in the segment, not the length. That means that the address might > be referenced. The granularity should be 0 for bytes. The address within in the segment is specified by the vector address contained within the IDT descriptor, so we don't have to worry about that. > so another, guaranteed-invalid address might be better, or you might > leave the P bit off in that segment or (better) in the > IDT entry 6 descriptor, causing a segment-not-present fault. > (I haven't tried any of this). Leaving the `P'resent bit off does generate a segment-not-present fault. Unfortunately, this is of lower priority than a illegal instruction fault, and doesn't work. (This was the first thing I tried) -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971114230915.12485>