From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 16 00:45:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA28983 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:45:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from phoenix.its.rpi.edu (phoenix.its.rpi.edu [128.113.161.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA28978 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:45:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Received: from localhost (dec@localhost) by phoenix.its.rpi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA01863 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:46:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:46:00 -0500 (EST) From: "David E. Cross" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: 'Official' Intel Fix 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 Well, I have seen the 'official' intel fix... it is the one to move the IDT over a page boundry. As has been said before, it is a nasty hairy kludge. Q: Does our fix 'work'.. in the SIGBUS code can we acurately determine if it was really SIGILL and return it? (what I am asking is why Intel picked that evil workaround) Q2: Considering that Intel's 'official' fix can result in a fair performance hit, any word on if they will be doing a recall? -- David Cross ACS Consultant