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