Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:37:17 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
To:        jbryant@tfs.net
Cc:        plm@xs4all.nl, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal)
Message-ID:  <199711100737.AAA10415@usr06.primenet.com>
In-Reply-To: <199711100650.AAA07487@argus.tfs.net> from "Jim Bryant" at Nov 10, 97 00:50:40 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> LOCK	CMPXCHG8B	EDX:EAX, ECX:EBX  ; crash...  pp 25-72 to
>                                           ; 25-73 of intel's arch & prog
>                                           ; manual for the pentium

The same manual states that the CMPXCHG8B asserts a "#LOCK" signal, as
does the "#LOCK" command.  Also some paging situations, and "XCHG".

It looks to me like they took the 486 macrocell, and extended it (easiest
way to get binary compatability), and "forgot" the new registers when
implementing the "#LOCK" assert test.

I can verify that using non-extended registers doesn't crash.

As someone else noticed, ther emay also be a cache fetch interaction
(page fault was another thing referenced by #LOCK).

Clearly, it's self-deadlocking trying to assert #LOCK.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711100737.AAA10415>