From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 23:15:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B349416A41F for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:15:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail1.fluidhosting.com (mail1.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CD6943D46 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:15:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 41344 invoked by uid 399); 10 Sep 2005 23:15:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.net@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Sep 2005 23:15:54 -0000 Message-ID: <43236929.2010909@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:15:53 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050908) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yar Tikhiy References: <431F6941.20006@gmail.com> <20050908001830.6A33270DCDB@mail.npubs.com> <431F841A.1060302@mawer.org> <20050909063328.GA47579@comp.chem.msu.su> <20050909213137.C0C3470DBC4@mail.npubs.com> <20050910100309.GA19194@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20050910100309.GA19194@comp.chem.msu.su> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Nielsen , talonz Subject: Re: ee using 99% cpu after user ssh session terminates abnormaly X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:15:55 -0000 Yar Tikhiy wrote: > As for ee, the fix from bin/65892 appears to have been applied to > CURRENT and 5-STABLE, but not to 4-STABLE. Care to test the fix > in 4.11 or 4-STABLE? It should be 100% safe. Since the diff in 1.32 was very clear, and it has already made it down to 5-stable, I tested this in RELENG_4 and committed it. I would still be interested in any reports about whether this does, or does not solve the problem. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection