I'll justify this message's presence in the rlug archives by adding that Linus as also disgusted by Intel's treatment/denial of the "ia32e" fiasco. Linus' reaction can also be found, but he lacks Theo's, erm, flare, I'll call it.
----- Forwarded message from Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: OpenBSD/amd64 on new Intel hardware > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:01:10 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > So we've had OpenBSD/amd64 tested on not-yet-released Intel ia32e > hardware. That's the new Intel hardware that has the AMD64 > instructions added. > > And the boot floppy works ... > > Of course, it is working without W^X protection. This is because > Intel decided against adding the MMU page table bit for NXE -- per > page non-execute. On most processors this is about 180 logic gates to > block loading of ptes which have NXE set into the ITLB (and cause > a fault instead). > > In 64 bit mode, of course, the processor architecture entirely lacks > segmentation, so i386 trick with the CS limit is not possible. > > Intel might have some hidden non-executable feature that we are not > yet aware of, but that is the entire problem with Intel: Secrecy, > secrecy, fucking bullshit secrecy. > > Therefore, if anyone is unfortunate and gets their hands on one of > these, I might urge you to run OpenBSD/i386 on it instead. > OpenBSD/i386 has the standard CS-limit W^X protection. But the way we > see it now, Intel crippled their processor by making it IMPOSSIBLE to > make tag memory as non-executable in 64 bit mode. > > On the other hand, OpenBSD/amd64 on our AMD cpus are doing W^X just > fine. > > Apparently Intel cloned the entire AMD64 architecture but missed out > on a very small but crucially important piece. ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
