From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 07:45:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:32:50 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9km9qj$djr$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kc355$ri0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9kcdli$24o$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5267be60.0108030900.26d4a4e7@posting.google.com> <9kemhs$17g$2@news.du.uab.ericsson.se> <5267be60.0108051339.6d5f44c9@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997108371 13947 136.170.200.133 (6 Aug 2001 14:32:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Aug 2001 14:32:51 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11367 comp.lang.c:72454 comp.lang.c++:80313 comp.lang.functional:7338 Date: 2001-08-06T14:32:51+00:00 List-Id: That is exactly the case. The designers took a decision as to the behavior of the computer in the event of this specific failure. The accommodation was to shut down the processor and switch to the other side. While other designs were possible (including multiple tasks that might have let the one side continue to do *some* of the work) this was not the design they chose. The decision is not at all uncommon. If you have two parallel computers for redundancy, you quite often decide that the FDA should be to shut down the (suspected) bad one and run with the good one. That's exactly why you built the spare in the first place. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Mike Silva" wrote in message news:5267be60.0108051339.6d5f44c9@posting.google.com... > > Except that the program (all or part) never crashed -- it was in full > control all the way to the end, when it pulled the plug. My point was > that the hardware exception would have almost certainly been coded to > perform the exact same steps (log the failure, shut down the unit) > regardless of the language used. >