Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:52:18 -0700 From: Avleen Vig <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com> To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Cc: gerarra@tin.it Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Message-ID: <20040918025217.GB54961@silverwraith.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916235936.GO23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <4146316C000077FD@ims3a.cp.tin.it> <20040916235936.GO23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 12:59:36AM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > > Inside the kernel? i can define a syscall accepting 30 args and it could > > send in panic freebsd kernel. I think it's a problem and a patch 'must' > > occur. > > You could also define a syscall with no arguments and have it call > panic(9). So what? The difference is, that calling panic(9) is not a bug, it's a designed mechanism to panic a kernel. The behaviour reported is NOT designed behaviour (at least, no-one has said it is). Therefore, if the man wants to write a patch to fix unintended behaviour, what's wrong with that? -- Avleen Vig Systems Administrator Personal: www.silverwraith.com EFnet: irc.mindspring.com (Earthlink user access only)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040918025217.GB54961>