From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 12 10:23:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24399 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:23:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov (anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov [141.221.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA24394 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:23:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cmott@srv.net) Received: from darkstar.home (tc-if3-21.ida.net [208.141.171.126]) by anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id LAA08670 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:23:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:22:49 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Mott X-Sender: cmott@darkstar.home To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Pentium bug (really) In-Reply-To: <19971112122617.23109@netmonger.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Christopher Masto wrote: > The fact is that they have a workaround. The bug is bizzare, the > workaround may be just as bizzare - perhaps the failure doesn't occur > given certain register settings that don't affect anything else.. I > don't know, and I'm not particularly interested in speculating on how > it works. I would consider getting the patch and disassembling it, > but at this time I'd rather not paint myself into a legal corner. I can see no reason that Intel would not want such information openly available. On the other hand, if BSDI figured out a fix on their own, they would have an economic incentive (perhaps) to keep it proprietary. Charles Mott