From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 10 09:29:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA13093 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:29:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from server.local.sunyit.edu (A-T34.rh.sunyit.edu [150.156.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA13066 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:29:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu) Received: from localhost (perlsta@localhost) by server.local.sunyit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20799 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:33:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: server.local.sunyit.edu: perlsta owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:33:30 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: perlsta@server.local.sunyit.edu To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) a fix? In-Reply-To: <199711100724.AAA09776@usr06.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk i don't know the logistics of doing this but what about an adapter that sits between the pentium and the socket that snoops for that code coming though the instruction line and mangles it into something different? would that work? is it feasable? -Alfred On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > can't to my knowledge, unless you are going to have your OS's check each > > opcode before it is executed (for CS people out there that is > > O(really-nasty) ;). > > You could always use a two processor box and burn one processor to > watchdog the other. 8-). > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >