Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras]
From: alan () LXORGUK UKUU ORG UK (Alan Cox)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:59:54 +0000
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
Current thread:
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Paul Murphy (Nov 11)
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Alan Cox (Nov 11)
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Solar Designer (Nov 13)
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Tabor J. Wells (Nov 13)
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Casper Dik (Nov 14)
- Re: [Fwd: NOTE: Solaris 7 gotcha for some ultras] Alan Cox (Nov 11)