Hi, On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Friday, July 13, 2012 10:42:04 am Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <201207130831.59211....@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >> >> >Every FreeBSD/amd64 kernel in existent is vulnerable. In truth, my > personal >> >opinion is that Intel screwed up their implementation of that instruction >> >whereas AMD got it right, and we are merely working around Intel's CPU bug. > :( >> >> Given that the instruction set of AMD64 is defined by AMD originally, >> while Intel was trying very hard to ram Itanic down everybodys >> throat, that diagnosis is a given: Intel copied AMD, and difference >> in functionality is a screwup on Intels part, even if they documented >> their screwup in their manual. >> >> TL;DR: Which part of "compatible" doesn't Intel get ? > > In this case, I believe they were just lazy and reused some existing block to > manage this exception case without properly thinking through the security > implications of using a user-supplied stack pointer to handle a fault. > Just as FreeBSD's developers were lazy when new-bus was designed ?
Honestly, what's the point of this rock throwing and ad-hominem attacks ? I could start throwing a few more CVE-2009-2936 or CVE-2009-4488; just to point out nobody's perfect... - Arnaud _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
