From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 20 20:26:39 1994 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA29554 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:26:39 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA29513 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 04:26:35 GMT Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA17443; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:26:28 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA00561; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:26:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199412210426.UAA00561@corbin.Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua (Andrew V. Stesin) cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [?!] So, is this a bug in the kernel execve() code? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Dec 94 01:20:06 GMT." From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:26:25 -0800 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >I tried to dig into that piece of kernel code, but sorry -- I'm not >a wisard, I'm not a kernel hacker, I'm not even on a mailing list. >I personally have no idea about how legal this behavior is and how to >fix it. I don't even know -- was this reported yet or not? > >So, questions. > > 1. How valid the described behavior is? If it isn't considered > valid, how one can fix it? > 2. Is there a set of "official" patches for 1.1.5? Where? > We're running vanilla 1.1.5.0 kernel, I only replaced > some user-area utilities. Maybe some bugfix patches are > needed? The bug was fixed shortly after it was reported - about 5 months ago. A patch to fix this and many other bugs should still be available on ref.tfs.com. -DG