Talk:Double fault: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:59, 3 July 2019

Computing: Software Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Going to drop the merge, if anything the triple fault should be merged into the double fault article. MadnessASAP (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSS links to the wrong thing! Argh, I hate article links by acronyms.

Can someone tell me what TSS really stands for in this context and link to it here? Graue 05:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TSS = Task state segment. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"As double faults can only happen due to kernel bugs, they are rarely[clarify] caused by userland programs."

A double fault is imho _always_ a kernel bug. If a userland program can trigger a double fault, than this is nevertheless a kernel bug, because the kernel shouldn't allow the userland program to do so. --Solaristhesun 06:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. I am, and should be, able to cause a double fault by trashing /proc/kcore. In general, it can happen whenever the kernel places significant trust in a userland program, which is not necessarily a bug (though one may consider it unwise under all circumstances). 85.146.241.224 00:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the processor doesn't have a complete memory management unit (MMU), but can still have execution protection, then you could theoretically cause a double fault with a user program. An example is the TI89 graphing calculator; it doesn't have a MMU, but it does have execution and write protections. If a program doesn't restore an interrupt vector, you could cause the system to crash, but I don't know if that would even be considered a double fault. Joeyadams (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:17, 25 June 2008 edit TinucherianBot (talk \| contribs) 134,614 edits WP:COMP Tagging ! (False Postive ?? ) :(Plugin++) Added {{WikiProject Computing}}. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:59, 3 July 2019 edit undo Widefox (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 107,008 edits Assessment: Computing: software=y, software-importance=Low, hardware=y, hardware-importance=Low, class=Start, importance=Low (assisted) Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}		{{WikiProject Computing \|class=Start \|importance=Low \|software=y \|software-importance=Low \|hardware=y \|hardware-importance=Low}}
	Going to drop the merge, if anything the triple fault should be merged into the double fault article. [[User:MadnessASAP\|MadnessASAP]] ([[User talk:MadnessASAP\|talk]]) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)		Going to drop the merge, if anything the triple fault should be merged into the double fault article. [[User:MadnessASAP\|MadnessASAP]] ([[User talk:MadnessASAP\|talk]]) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)