From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 24 20:49:31 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC67C6E
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com
 [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FA81C4A
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94543ADFA
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
To: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: OpenSSL static analysis, was: De Raadt + FBSD + OpenSSH + hole?
In-Reply-To: <D18165F1-0213-4A1F-96F4-6E0F6F735C69@cederstrand.dk>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:49:24 -0700
Message-ID: <26111.1398372564@server1.tristatelogic.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:49:31 -0000


In message <D18165F1-0213-4A1F-96F4-6E0F6F735C69@cederstrand.dk>, 
Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> wrote:

>As others have pointed out, 'too hard' can also mean 'too hard' to get 
>someone with commit access to actually commit the patch and accept the 
>risk of introducing new bugs. Case in point: I contributed this 
>one-liner patch for ZFS found by Clang Analyzer, adding the __noreturn__ 
>pragma you also mention: https://www.illumos.org/issues/3363. For 1,5 
>years, I have been unable to get anyone from FreeBSD or Illumos to 
>commit it or even review it.

Ah!  OK.  That is a different sort of problem entirely, and one for which
I personally have no suggestion, nor any ready answer.


Regards,
rfg