From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3e7b6e1bef809d34385dcee260bdb7db@coraid.com> References: <9001.1266527667@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu> <3e7b6e1bef809d34385dcee260bdb7db@coraid.com> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:12:10 +1100 Message-ID: <166806221002181512x13dc3662jf5b3fc00cfda529e@mail.gmail.com> From: Adrian Tritschler To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] pineview atom Topicbox-Message-UUID: d6db2a0e-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 19 February 2010 09:38, erik quanstrom wrote: >> There is no mechanism which directly translates bit flips >> to crashes! =C2=A0The bad case is actually a corruption which >> does *not* cause a crash, but is written to disk. =C2=A0How > indirection? =C2=A0executable code being turned into illegal > instructions? =C2=A0it's not 100% efficiency but it will translate > flipped bits into crashes. I believe Dave was implying that there is no mechanism that _guarantees_ that a bit flip anywhere in memory will result in a code crash. Some bit flips just might mean the wrong colour pixel on your screen, others might mean that someone's pay scale goes from $7.50 an hour to $4096 + $17.50 an hour, some might just be in an unused chunk of RAM. Flips in code are more likely to cause crashes, but still not guaranteed. > - erik --=20 Adrian