From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 23 01:12:18 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 3AF656EA
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:12:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com
 [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D33B13A3
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B095C3AE0E
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL static analysis, was: De Raadt + FBSD + OpenSSH + hole?
In-Reply-To: <20140423010054.2891E143D098@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:12:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10999.1398215531@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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:12:18 -0000


In message <20140423010054.2891E143D098@rock.dv.isc.org>, 
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

>As for the number of CLANG analysis warnings.  Clang has false
>positives

Please define your terms.

I do imagine that the truth or falsehood of your assertion may depend
quite substantally on what one does or does not consider a "false
positive" in this context.

>some of which are impossible to remove regardless of how
>you recode the section...

I, for one, would dearly love to see one or more concrete examples
which purport to support the above assertion (of which I am dubious).


Regards,
rfg