Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:03:06 +0100 From: Michael Grimm <trashcan@odo.in-berlin.de> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-15:02.kmem Message-ID: <6D500B8B-DA1F-4F66-B407-1996FE7AD2EB@odo.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <201501271955.t0RJt8WC055452@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201501271955.t0RJt8WC055452@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi -- This mail: > FreeBSD-SA-15:02.kmem Security = Advisory Other Mail: | FreeBSD-SA-15:03.sctp Security = Advisory > 3) To update your vulnerable system via a source code patch: >=20 > The following patches have been verified to apply to the applicable > FreeBSD release branches. >=20 > a) Download the relevant patch from the location below, and verify the > detached PGP signature using your PGP utility. >=20 This mail: > # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch > # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch.asc The other mail: | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch | # fetch https://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/SA-15:02/sctp.patch.asc Well, experienced admins will notice that both patches are distinct, won't overwrite the first patch file downloaded with the second one, and won't start compiling the kernel missing the first patch. But, I do have the feeling that this naming scheme is error prone. Just my 2 cents and with kind regards, Michael=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6D500B8B-DA1F-4F66-B407-1996FE7AD2EB>