From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 12 10:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11994 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:29:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) 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 KAA11980 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:28:57 -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 MAA19382; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:28:24 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id MAA17321; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:27:53 -0600 Message-ID: <19971212122752.36696@right.PCS> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:27:52 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Greenman , John Kelly , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: F00F bug *fixed* in 2.0.x kernels References: <199712120608.WAA01136@implode.root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Linus Torvalds on Dec 12, 1997 at 09:12:40AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Dec 12, 1997 at 09:12:40AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, David Greenman wrote: > > > On 8 Dec 1997 23:11:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.development.system > > torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote: > > > > > >If they are indeed still using that fix, they are a sorry lot of > > >incompetent idiots. > > > > The fix that Linus is refering to is one of several that were evaluated > > and rejected. The fix that we finally adopted in FreeBSD is the one that > > involves making the IDT to read-only and catching the write fault that > > occurs. > > Good. > > And I think I should clarify my position a bit - people did obviously not > find my statement about "sorry lot of incompetent idiots" to go over well > in some circles. Strange ;) > > Anyway, first I'd like to point out the "if .. indeed" clause of that > part, just in case somebody missed it. I don't think anyone missed it. However, the phrasing was same as the question ``Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'' EG: it presupposes circumstances that are not true. In this case, the assumption is that the fix was actually used by FBSD in the first place. I did propose the fix as a possible solution, and within the same day, I received reports of it not working for everyone. Within a few days, I heard secondhand that it didn't work for you. Later, I received conclusive proof from Intel that it would not work in all cases. In no case did the ``fix'' ever come close to going into FBSD. I would posit that the people working on the FBSD codebase are competent enough to not commit a fix until it is proven to work, and that it works in all cases. Thus, derogatory statements like the one above, which assume the opposite, are uncalled for. -- Jonathan