From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 12 14:05:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14100 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:05:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from schenectady.netmonger.net (schenectady.netmonger.net [209.54.21.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14082 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:05:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from postmaster@schenectady.netmonger.net) Received: (from news@localhost) by schenectady.netmonger.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA04942 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from GATEWAY by schenectady.netmonger.net with netnews for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org (freebsd-chat@freebsd.org) To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Date: 12 Nov 1997 21:51:42 GMT From: chris@netmonger.net (Christopher Masto) Message-ID: <64d8de$488$1@schenectady.netmonger.net> Organization: NetMonger Communications References: <19971112122617.23109@netmonger.net>, Subject: Re: Pentium bug (really) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article , Charles Mott wrote: >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. I've been spending too much time in a pleasant business that involves telling the truth all the time and not pulling the wool over people's eyes. Someone pointed out that it's possible that the "workaround" could be easily worked around given a good look at it. That would seem to fit perfectly with Intel not wanting it to be disclosed. Naturally, the philosophy of "security through obscurity" is not something I subscribe to, and I don't know many clued-in folks who do, but in the crazy world Intel inhabits, it probably makes sense to them. Hopefully that's just paranoia and Intel is really going to disclose the workaround after they test it more thoroughly. I don't think the BSDI proprietary thing is all that likely, as they seem to be a reasonable company that wouldn't pull that kind of stunt. Didn't they donate some of their virtual x86 code recently? -- = Christopher Masto = chris@netmonger.net = http://www.netmonger.net/ = = NetMonger Communications = finger for PGP key = $19.95/mo unlimited access = = Director of Operations = (516) 221-6664 = mailto:info@netmonger.net =