Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:50:14 -0600 (CST) From: hawkeyd@visi.com (D J Hawkey Jr) To: oleg@oleg.vsi.ru, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-SA-02:08.exec patch for 4.0-RELEASE systems Message-ID: <200201281150.g0SBoEc06476@sheol.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1011984925.3c51aa1dd5d4d_webmail.vsi.ru@ns.sol.net> References: <1011984925.3c51aa1dd5d4d_webmail.vsi.ru@ns.sol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <1011984925.3c51aa1dd5d4d_webmail.vsi.ru@ns.sol.net>, oleg@oleg.vsi.ru writes: > 4.0-RELEASE systems seems to be affected with problems in this advisory. > > My company use a number of 4.0-RELEASE systems that are not upgradable for some > reasons. So I wrote a patch for these systems (below). Can anybody tell me, are > these changes in code sufficient to avoid problems listed in advisory ? Looks quite similar to the backported patches I made for 4.1-REL, 4.1.1-REL, and 4.2-REL. I'm not an expert, but it (and they) should work as advertised. Neither of us hacked the CHECKIO() macro found in 4.3-REL:/sys/miscfs/procfs/procfs.h into the older code, but I think we're still OK. Actually, from what I could see, the patch to that macro is redundant, but pro'lly a good idea as the code moves forward; (p->p_flag & P_INEXEC) will be one less thing to have to remember. > Index: sys/kern/kern_exec.c > diff -u sys/kern/kern_exec.c.orig sys/kern/kern_exec.c > > [SNIP] Thanks, Dave -- Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201281150.g0SBoEc06476>