Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!uudell!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Weitek under unix (was Re: SECURITY BUG)
Keywords: BAD BUG
Message-ID: <54602@bigtex.cactus.org>
Date: 15 Feb 91 16:49:47 GMT
References: <1991Feb11.184130.11321@jwt.UUCP> <1991Feb12.020625.6779@kithrup.COM> <54428@bigtex.cactus.org> <1991Feb13.050417.10170@rfengr.com>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Organization: Institute of Applied Cosmology, Austin TX
Lines: 24

In <1991Feb13.050417.10170@rfengr.com>, rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) wrote:

> In article <54428@bigtex.cactus.org> I (James Van Artsdalen) wrote:

| The Abacus (Weitek is the company name) does not use memory for
| registers, but instead uses memory for the instruction set.

> So James, I'm having trouble reading through the obfuscation -- I
> really don't see what the facts above have to do with the subject of
> whether or not Dell Unix has the bug.

The Subject: was "Re: Weitek under unix (was Re: SECURITY BUG)".  The
contents corrected misimpressions on how the Weitek worked.  The
Weitek does not need the u block to be writable, and there is no
reason for 387 support (real or emulated) to need the u block to be
writable.

> Here, here's a simple yes or no question: "Does Dell Unix allow user
> processes to overwrite the u block?"

It does not allow it on my 486.  I have no 386 to try it on.
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen          james@bigtex.cactus.org   "Live Free or Die"
Dell Computer Co    9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789