Re: Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the future 32-bit archs: a proposal)]
On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 17:47, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > How easily could we add 64-bit system detection to the i386 installer,
> > and a message saying something like:
> >
> > "You're installing the i386 architecture on a 64-bit system. While this
> > will work, this is the last release it'll be supported. We recommend
> > installing the 64-bit amd64 architecture instead.
Note that similar messaging could be used for
compatible-and-higher-spec installation targets on other architectures
too.
(attempting to install armhf on an arm64 machine, for example)
I guess a challenge here is that the installation environment (kernel
and/or userspace) needs to know and provide information about the fact
that 64-bit mode works on the hardware it's running on, and for that
to be discoverable by the installer.
>From testing: when I load the i386 bullseye CD-ISO in x86-64 qemu (so:
running an i386 kernel), it was unclear to me from the shell whether
64-bit mode is supported on the hardware (it is, but we'd need a good,
reasonably portable and scriptable way to discover that).
> This is not a valid use for i386. Running the i386 kernel on _modern_
> hardware is insecure, slower (esp. if you have a non-tiny amount of
> memory), etc. We should put a big fat warnings for _that_.
What kind of insecurities would result from using an i386 kernel
instead of an amd64 one?
Reply to: