From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262832AbUBZTqm (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:46:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262943AbUBZTqm (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:46:42 -0500 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:14209 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262832AbUBZTn1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:43:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:46:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard B. Johnson" X-X-Sender: root@chaos Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: Timothy Miller cc: Chris Wedgwood , "Nakajima, Jun" , richard.brunner@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD64 In-Reply-To: <403E481E.7060609@techsource.com> Message-ID: References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173EA28A5@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> <20040226133959.GA19254@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <403E481E.7060609@techsource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Timothy Miller wrote: > > > Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > Whether or not the CPU traps this invalid instruction is moot. No > > compiler would emit junk like this and anybody horsing around with > > an assembler deserves whatever they get, although you shouldn't > > be able to smoke the CPU on a multi-user multitasking system because > > it can be used as a DOS attack. > > > If this is junk that's invalid, why was it mentioned in the first place? > Because there are hobbiest that look for undocumented op-codes, see http://www.x86.org They find some interesting things and then they wonder if what they've found will work with other vendor's CPUs. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.