I don't have much to say about the StrongARM bug -- except to say that
it does seem desirable to work around it transparently if possible --
but I want to take issue with this statement:

> after all, Linux manages to fix the 'F00F' bug

First of all, `Linux' didn't `fix' that.  The first method for
`fixing' it (some klugery involving causing a page fault) came from
BSDI.  It was my analysis that demonstrated that this method
introduced new bugs.  The second method -- and the one we use -- came
(AFAIK) from Intel.  So, saying that Linux `fixed' it is misleading;
they simply adopted a method devised by someone else.

Secondly, most operating systems include a workaround for it now.
Certainly NetBSD does; I wrote the code myself.  It just doesn't put
up a big banner and yell at you about it, because there's no need to;
the bug is completely worked around in software and therefore, from a
user's perspective, doesn't exist any more.  There isn't even a
measurable performance impact.