news@santra.UUCP (news) (08/14/87)
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 Lahticlif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (08/17/87)
> 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.
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/18/87)
>> 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. | I have sent Mr Turner two Email letters requesting that he demonstrate this, or retract it. I believe that it is true of the 80286, but doesn't seem to be for the 386. I think this whole claim is the product of an overloaded undergraduate mind. Personal to Mr Turner: My cow is dead, I don't need your bull! -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {chinet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me