Talk:Cyrix coma bug

This is not a fix
A simple fix is to insert another instruction in the loop, the nop instruction being a good candidate. This is not really a fix for the problem. The problem is that any program can lock up the cpu, without giving the os the chance to do something about it. Unless the above statement implies scanning all programs for suspect opcodes, patching them, taking into jump targets and self-modifying code, that is to say, effectively running all programs in an emulator, it is not a fix. Shinobu 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that if your program runs similar code, and it's causing the computer to lock, even though it was not your intention, adding a nop will avoid the lock. However, you're right that in an intentional attempt to trigger the bug and cause a DoS, it's not a solution at all. 201.212.126.164 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this necessary?
What's the significance of 0x36, 0x78, 0x38, 0x36 and movl %eax, %edx ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.74 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

0x36, 0x78, 0x38, 0x36 that is "6x86" in ascii, it could be anything. --46.64.28.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cyrix coma bug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928041114/http://grafi.ii.pw.edu.pl:80/grafi1/gbm/x86/6x86reg.html to http://grafi.ii.pw.edu.pl/grafi1/gbm/x86/6x86reg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Workarounds
Regarding "One way to prevent this bug is to enable bit 0x10 in the configuration register CCR1 …": Isn’t it possible for the attacker to disable the named bit? -- Pemu (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)