On Friday, July 13, 2012 10:42:04 am Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, 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. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
