--98e8jtXdkpgskNou
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:53:00PM +0000, Ben Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Chris Gilbert wrote:
>=20
> > > NB. the code in question could be made safer by adding a check for th=
e cpu
> > > class (which could be set up during boot).
> >=20
> > Yep, I suppose the way to do it is to have an arm7 swi handler, just be=
 a=20
> > matter of setting up the zero page differently.
>=20
> I still don't see why this is necessary.  Is it expected that future ARMs
> will define new instructions that will take the SWI trap, or something? =
=20
> Even if they do, the worst that will happen is that the new instructions
> will cause the process to loop rather than catching a SIGILL, and I hardly
> think that's an immediate cause for concern.

Interuptable loop? Else it makes for nice denial of service attacks.

	-is

--98e8jtXdkpgskNou
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQEVAgUBOqX9hjCn4om+4LhpAQEnPQf+MPlyXNZHeKZxQ0ExM7alNmI7k+46VOQZ
zB4wEx0DH40UfejesEfj8uV4RFI8naLW17XzEATyOvYNxaiDgi6pgVQWl820pS2J
Lf3yp6s6pyl49Rr8YzbFDP7jkb5X0aGsRhzrZ2jQEJ3dfUEW7yuFGwNnjWwleG/W
ntqvz6sVjukXx5nS7vxdo3Jk7AsVB/P6Xn3si1Nu2n85p2kXtm9iepaEAPvhA9iS
4Ktlalj193609qxtCy1OTPtMWxQ8assuM7hTUQNYHukKSeegEERIh+5w5Xs1scX+
Hnj75OA5D2FB0i+CwsI97Dc6yUd7iQ0YTZIn/rSLrQs3YwftEKwe/g==
=o69b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--98e8jtXdkpgskNou--