Congratulations! You spent a heck of a lot of time working on that -- nice to see that the work paid off.
Eric On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Matthew Dillon <dil...@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: > AMD has confirmed the cpu bug that I analyzed. I am going to quote > the first paragraph. They gave me some more info and will be updating > their revision guide. To avoid any confusion (so they can finalize their > wording for the entry they will be putting in the revision guide) I'm > just including the confirmation here. > > quote>> > > "AMD has taken your example and also analyzed the segmentation fault and > the fill_sons_in_loop code. We confirm that you have found an erratum > with som e AMD processor families. The specific compiled version of > the fill_sons_in_loop code, through a very specific sequence of > consecutive back-to-back pops and (near) return instructions, can > create a condition where the process or incorrectly updates the > stack pointer." > > <<endquote > > We exchanged a few emails to try to come up with a good test case. > Owing to the difficulty of reproducing the bug I constructed a > fully bootable DFly operating system & test case USB image and > verified that the bug was present on my test box using that image. > AMD was then able to reproduce the bug using that image on their own > machines. Over the last few months they have been working through > the possibilities and today emailed me the confirmation that it was, > indeed, a cpu bug. > > I'm pretty stoked... it isn't every day that a guy like me gets to > find an honest-to-god hardware bug in a major cpu! > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dil...@backplane.com>
