[8508] in bugtraq
Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Cox)
Thu Nov 12 12:38:59 1998
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:59:54 +0000
Reply-To: Alan Cox <alan@LXORGUK.UKUU.ORG.UK>
From: Alan Cox <alan@LXORGUK.UKUU.ORG.UK>
X-To: pjm@GEMINI-RESEARCH.CO.UK
To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
In-Reply-To: <s6496909.065@gemini-research.co.uk> from "Paul Murphy" at Nov
11, 98 10:37:56 am
> This shouldn't come as a surprise, since Sun are talking openly about it
> in their Solaris 7 seminars for system administrators (which you _have_
> attended, right?). The problem is restricted to older systems, and their
They don't however talk openly about the chip bug which is stupid. Anyone
with crashme can demonstrate its existance but their head up arse nondisclosure
attitude to the bug makes it hard for other people to do workarounds.
Its not like reporting the bug details harms anyone given crashme's
effective proof of bug.
> advice was that if you were at all worried about this, you should run the 32-
> bit kernel for peace of mind. Later processors are unaffected.
>
> If they'd put the 64-bit kernel in by default, you'd criticise them for leaving
> a security hole in the system.....
If they worked around it I'd be more impressed, if they shipped replacement
CPU's I'd be even more impressed still. The ultrasparc was advertised as
a 64bit CPU, people did buy them on that basis.
Does anyone who has an actual maintenance contract (ie more than 1 leg
to stand on in this issue) know if they are replacing faulty CPU's ?
Alan
