Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v09i191: popadbug, test for 386 CPU bug
Message-ID: <2833@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 91 23:38:13 GMT
References: <336@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> <1991Jan5.000042.19703@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991Jan5.044926.14501@eng.ufl.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jan5.044926.14501@eng.ufl.edu> shelby@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scott Preston) writes:
| 
|     My SX failed the test of course!  I think all 386s fail this test..is this
| a bug OR, a "feature" since sooooo many have this??

  I have yet to see a DX pass or an SX (or 486) fail. That doesn't mean
a lot, but I'd rather have a CPU which *words*.

  My major worry is not breaking code in a given program, although I
like things to work, of course. My question is if there is any way this
could be a point of attack to crash a protected mode app. I haven't been
able to do it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The point of
attack would be if a status register of seg register were wrong, could
protection be violated? That doesn't *seem* to be true.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me