On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 17:47, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Josh Triplett wrote: > > How easily could we add 64-bit system detection to the i386 installer, > > and a message saying something like: > > > > "You're installing the i386 architecture on a 64-bit system. While this > > will work, this is the last release it'll be supported. We recommend > > installing the 64-bit amd64 architecture instead.
Note that similar messaging could be used for compatible-and-higher-spec installation targets on other architectures too. (attempting to install armhf on an arm64 machine, for example) I guess a challenge here is that the installation environment (kernel and/or userspace) needs to know and provide information about the fact that 64-bit mode works on the hardware it's running on, and for that to be discoverable by the installer. >From testing: when I load the i386 bullseye CD-ISO in x86-64 qemu (so: running an i386 kernel), it was unclear to me from the shell whether 64-bit mode is supported on the hardware (it is, but we'd need a good, reasonably portable and scriptable way to discover that). > This is not a valid use for i386. Running the i386 kernel on _modern_ > hardware is insecure, slower (esp. if you have a non-tiny amount of > memory), etc. We should put a big fat warnings for _that_. What kind of insecurities would result from using an i386 kernel instead of an amd64 one?
