Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!amdcad!amd!intelca!clif
From: clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Protection problem real?? (was Re: Intel Microprocessors)
Message-ID: <4379@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Aug-87 13:27:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.4379
Posted: Mon Aug 17 13:27:45 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Aug-87 05:43:23 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <789@unccvax.UUCP> <1924@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> <320@l5 <7180@santra17 Aug 87 17:27:45 GMT
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 30

> In article <320@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
> ]
> ]Why? Intel goofed once again in it's architectural design. The chip IS NOT
> ]fully protected while running in protected mode. A user level program can
> ]bring the chip, and all the other users on that chip, down quite easily.
> ]And there's not a DAMN thing the OS writer can do about it.
> ]
> Is this true or just a piece of net misinformation?  Could someone say
> how this might happen?
> 
> 	/Jerry Lahti

I suspect that Mr. Turner is spreading disinformation (sounds like he
has a promising future in politics).  

I challenge Mr. Turner to produce user code that will crash a 386 system.  
To make the challenge even more interesting I will give him a $100 if he 
succeeds, if he fails, he promises to stop insulting Intel products for 1
year.  The conditions are straightforward he produces the user code that 
crashes the system, I describe the behavior of the OS which prevents his
code from crashing the system.

Well Scott do you accept?
-- 
Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif

These views are my own property.  However anyone who wants them can have 
them for a nominal fee.