From owner-freebsd-bugs Sat Nov 15 09:54:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21096 for bugs-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:54:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [207.170.17.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA21086 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:54:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@americantv.com) Received: from right.PCS (right.PCS [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12950; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:54:02 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id LAA13701; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:53:30 -0600 Message-ID: <19971115115330.29942@right.PCS> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:53:30 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Brett Glass Cc: dg@root.com, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Foof! bug fix? References: <3.0.5.32.19971115102143.00a3d430@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971115102143.00a3d430@mail.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Nov 11, 1997 at 10:21:43AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 11, 1997 at 10:21:43AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > The main thing to watch for, in this case, is the potential for yet other faults. > Intel probably recommended a page fault because it supercedes EVERYTHING, making it > pretty darn safe. But if a segment fault is used instead, will there ever be > a situation where (a) a multiple fault occurs, or (b) something supercedes the > segment fault or interferes with its processing? I don't have my Intel manuals > right here, so I'm not able to work though all of the arcane possibilities. Actually, according to my copy of the Intel manual, the priority of a page fault and segment limit are equivalent. However, I've had a report of this patch not working on a machine, so perhaps something else is at play here. -- Jonathan