On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 06:26:02AM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > was never intended to run real 32-bit programs with 64-bit ops enabled, > > and I would strongly urge you not to do this now. > > After a bit of thinking, I consider this not to be a real problem. Apart > from the kernel interface, which sanitizes values passed, the rest is pure > userland, where allowing undefined operation with 64-bit opcodes cannot > really hurt. Of course running a buggy or malicious program may lead to > bad results or loss of data, but it'll be limited to the user responsible > for running such software and the root user by definition has to know what > he is doing and specifically he is responsible for not running untrusted > software on critical systems. > > That said, I don't really have a strong preference either way -- it just > doesn't seem to be worth the hassle for me to explicitly defend against > such a marginal case. Although it may be good to try validating this > assumption with `crashme'. It's a while since this last has been done and all bugs showing up were fixed ... Ralf
