Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:20:55 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freebsd.org> Cc: Andrew Stesin <stesin@gu.net>, freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: F00F patch problems for 2.2.5-RELEASE (incomplete patch.) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971208090633.16632J-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971208110651.272K-100000@beast.gu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Andrew Stesin wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, John Fieber wrote: > > > The patch in the updates directory on ftp.freebsd.org should be > > updated. The errata says: > > > > o Intel "F00F bug" enables users to hang machines with Pentium > > processors if they have access to the machine and can execute programs. > > > > Fix: Update to the 2.2-stable version of the kernel or apply the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Would you mind pointing out the breakpoint -STABLE snapshot date, > please? I don't have an answer, but checking back in the file I was rather stunned to notice that there is NO date information for any of the updates. If you are applying the supplied patches, that is probably okay, but a big problem for anyone being very conservative and/or selective about tracking stable. As has been brought up recently, blindly tracking a "stable" kernel without updating user-land utilities can bite you--I learned this from personal experience. A list of affected source files with version numbers would also be very helpful, but I'll grant that could be deduced from the diff---assuming there is one, which is not the case for the lpd update. Finally, a pointer to www.freebsd.org/handbook/stable.html would be good to mention whenever suggesting that people track stable. -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971208090633.16632J-100000>