From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 3 23:26:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CAB16A4B3 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1177443FAF for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:26:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h946Q2AD042029; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:26:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:26:05 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20031004.002605.65822565.imp@bsdimp.com> To: barney@databus.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20031004021041.GA33705@pit.databus.com> References: <20031004014527.GB32411@pit.databus.com> <20031004015404.GW72999@procyon.firepipe.net> <20031004021041.GA33705@pit.databus.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [security-advisories@freebsd.org: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:17.procfs] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:26:06 -0000 In message: <20031004021041.GA33705@pit.databus.com> Barney Wolff writes: : On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:54:04PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote: : > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:45:27PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: : > > I'm finally motivated to ask, why don't security advisories contain : > > the equivalent revs for -head? Surely I can't be the only person : > > following -current who doesn't build every day. : > : > Simply because the SO does not support -CURRENT. : : Does this mean that the situation can ever arise where a security bug : is corrected in the advisory's announced releases but not in -current? Typically yes. However, see below. : Or, can we assume that as of the time of the security announcement : the vulnerability has *always* been corrected in -current? Standard operating proceedure is to commit to head, then to the branches. However, it is theoretically possible that a bug exists in current that is exploitable in the same way that an advisory addresses. I think we've had this issue only once in the project's history. The code was in the kernel and the then-current -current was so different from stable that patches to stable didn't fix the problem on current and it took a while to realize that there was a problem and to fix it. Warner