Xref: utzoo comp.unix.admin:1261 comp.unix.internals:2351 comp.unix.programmer:1346
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: SVVS requires a panic?  Was: Re: CRASH your TANDEM :
Keywords: panic that kernel
Message-ID: <6685@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 16 Mar 91 19:57:58 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.admin
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 12

>I talked to a couple of Tandem engineers after USENIX this January.  They
>bragged that their systems failed the SVVS (requiring waivers)
>because some tests to invoke PANIC messages didn't work; Tandem
>UNIX doesn't crash under some of the conditions expected by AT&T.

That's an interesting claim, but I'm rather skeptical of it.  AT&T has
done some bogus things in the SVVS (e.g., requiring that "read()", as I
remember, actually bump the system time returned by "times()"; this
shafted Apollo, because the Domain/OS implementation of "read()" was all
in user mode, so it bumped the user time but not the system time), but
requiring that the system *panic* wasn't one of them, at least not in
the version of the SVVS I've seen.