From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 7 16:30:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04200 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:30:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04194 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:30:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA08055; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from UNKNOWN(), claiming to be "current1.whistle.com" via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd008053; Fri Nov 7 16:22:24 1997 Message-ID: <3463B053.2781E494@whistle.com> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:20:35 -0800 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Eckardt CC: "David E. Cross" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) References: <199711080009.BAA00399@ghost.mep.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Robert Eckardt wrote: > > It was David E. Cross who wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > On a "genuine Intel" pentium (not pentium pro) > > > execution of the following sequence, 0xf0 0x0f 0xc7 0xc8 > > > > > > will stop the processor. This is doable from user mode and in > > > 16bitmode, or in fact any mode. > [...] > > > this one DEFINITLY dies: > > > CPU: Pentium (99.38-MHz 586-class CPU) > > > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x525 Stepping=5 > > > Features=0x1bf > > > > > > > CPU: Pentium (132.96-MHz 586-class CPU) > > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12 > > Features=0x1bf > > > > Just tested OK for me (no crash) > > Just tested: > CPU: Pentium (133.64-MHz 586-class CPU) > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x52c Stepping=12 > Features=0x1bf > > It crashes (just lost my most recent mailbox, though I had synced!). > This is 2.2.2-RELEASE. > > I also tested DOS-6.2 w/ TurboC-2.0 > in 8088/8086-model it still reacts on Numlock and Ctrl-Alt-Del. > in 80186/80286-mode it crashes too. in 8086 mode, does adding a '0xc3' on the end of the sequence make any difference?