Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 13:16:50 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: marc@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Marc Binderberger) Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD != 4.4BSD ??? Message-ID: <199509062016.NAA26538@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Sep 95 20:02:42 %2B0200." <199509061802.UAA10110@wptx02.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>up to now I understood FreeBSD 2.x as an implementation of 4.4BSD (light) >on PC based hardware. Hmm... I'm irritated by the following article >Eric Allman wrote about the possibility to overload the internal >syslog buffer: > >[Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail, Message-ID: <427sc8$4q6@agate.berkeley.edu>] > [...] > THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT IN SENDMAIL AND IS ARGUABLY NOT IN SYSLOG. > The real problem is in sprintf and vsprintf. We learned way back > with the Internet Worm that routines that write a buffer without > taking a buffer size (in that case, gets) are a bad idea, but except > for 4.4BSD, no one seems to have figured out that sprintf (and > vsprintf) are included in this list. > [...] > >So I expected to have no such problems. But a look into the sources >(I'm using FreeBSD 2.1.0-950726-SNAP) and a small test program (just >logging 16k of `x' ... core!) tells me that I must have something >misunderstood. Seems that FreeBSD isn't produced totally out of the >4.4BSD Sources? Or do I over-interpret Eric's article? Well, as one of the two people who did the initial port of 4.4-Lite that became FreeBSD 2.x, I can say most certainly that FreeBSD _is_ based on 4.4BSD-Lite as released from Berkeley. I don't know what Eric was talking about, but I'm sure there is a simple misunderstanding. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509062016.NAA26538>