Does anyone on FreeBSD know if it's affected by this?
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2017-13077
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freeb
In message
, blubee blubeeme writes:
>Does anyone on FreeBSD know if it's affected by this?
>https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2017-13077
It is, same as Linux, we use the same wpa_supplicant software
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org
well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp
wrote:
>
> In message gmail.com>
> , blubee blubeeme writes:
>
> >Does anyone on FreeBSD know if it's affected by this?
> >https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2017-13077
>
> It is,
Am 16.10.17 um 12:38 schrieb blubee blubeeme:
> well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In message > gmail.com>
>> , blubee blubeeme writes:
>>
>>> Does anyone on FreeBSD know if it's affected by this?
>>> https:
This is awesome, thanks!
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 19:19 Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 16.10.17 um 12:38 schrieb blubee blubeeme:
> > well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In message >> gmail.com>
> >> , b
On 16.10.2017 13:38, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
It is really cluster: CVE-2017-13077, CVE-2017-13078, CVE-2017-13079,
CVE-2017-13080, CVE-2017-13081, CVE-2017-13082, CVE-2017-13084,
CVE-2017-13086,CVE-2017-13087, CVE-2017-13088.
--
// Lev Serebryakov
_
In message <21896d6e-75be-3376-bc32-9d911227d...@freebsd.org>, Stefan Esser
wri
tes:
> Am 16.10.17 um 12:38 schrieb blubee blubeeme:
> > well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In message >> gmail.c
In message <44161b4d-f834-a01d-6ddb-475f20876...@freebsd.org>, Lev Serebryakov
writes:
> On 16.10.2017 13:38, blubee blubeeme wrote:
>
> > well, that's a cluster if I ever seen one.
> It is really cluster: CVE-2017-13077, CVE-2017-13078, CVE-2017-13079,
> CVE-2017-13080, CVE-2017-13081, CVE-20
hi,
I got the patches a couple days ago. I've been busy with personal life
stuff so I haven't updated our in-tree hostapd/wpa_supplicant. If
someone beats me to it, great, otherwise I'll try to do it in the next
couple days.
I was hoping (!) for a hostap/wpa_supplicant 2.7 update to just update
e
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
> hi,
>
> I got the patches a couple days ago. I've been busy with personal life
> stuff so I haven't updated our in-tree hostapd/wpa_supplicant. If
> someone beats me to it, great, otherwise I'll try to do it in the next
> couple days.
>
> I w
Right, there are backported patches against 2.6, but we're running 2.5
in contrib/ .
This is all "I'm out of time right now", so if someone wants to do the
ports work and/or the contrib work with the patches for this vuln then
please do. I should be able to get to it in the next few days but I'm
b
Hi Adrian!
How big effort is to update he in-tree wpa_supplicant/hostapd to the
latest supported version?
Is there any known regression / feature loss when do the upgrade?
On 10/16/17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Right, there are backported patches against 2.6, but we're running 2.5
> in contrib/ .
>
Eight patches have been posted so, it should be easy to patch 2.5, MFC, and
bring head up to 2.6 later. This should avoid the risk of possible regressions.
I haven't looked at the ports.
---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard. Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
Cy Schubert
or
-Origin
> On 16. Oct 2017, at 8:50 PM, Cy Schubert wrote:
>
> Eight patches have been posted so, it should be easy to patch 2.5, MFC, and
> bring head up to 2.6 later. This should avoid the risk of possible
> regressions.
Nope, does not apply easily. Refactoring changed contexts, function names
and
Looking at the wpa_supplicant port, it may be a quicker win than base at
the moment.
I don't have much of my lunch hour left to complete anything.
--
Cheers,
Cy Schubert
FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org
The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
In message
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Adrian Chadd
> wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > I got the patches a couple days ago. I've been busy with personal life
> > stuff so I haven't updated our in-tree hostapd/wpa_supplicant. If
> > someone beats me to it, great, otherwise I'll try to do it in the next
> > co
I'll commit the wpa_supplicant port now but I don't have enough time this
lunch hour to create a vuxml entry or to update the hostapd port.
It may be simpler to update base to 2.6 to facilitate patching. What do
people think?
--
Cheers,
Cy Schubert
FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.
It doesn't, which is why I patched the port at lunch today. It's a quick win
with the time I had.
I think we should update base to 2.6 and apply the patches.
---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard. Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
Cy Schubert
or
-Original Message-
From: Franco
> On 16. Oct 2017, at 10:19 PM, Cy Schubert wrote:
>
> It doesn't, which is why I patched the port at lunch today. It's a quick win
> with the time I had.
Thank you, much appreciated. Will give it some testing.
> I think we should update base to 2.6 and apply the patches.
Sounds like a plan
Hi,
A problem w.r.t. the NFSv4 client's renew thread (nfscl) running up a lot of CPU
when the NFSv4 mount is in a jail has been reported to the freebsd-stable@
mailing list.
I know nothing about jails, but when looking at the code, the most obvious
cause of this would be "pfind_locked(pid)" faili
I'll test it when I get home tonight. The WiFi here at the tech park is open
so, I couldn't test here.
---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard. Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
Cy Schubert
or
-Original Message-
From: Franco Fichtner
Sent: 16/10/2017 13:34
To: Cy Schubert
Cc: Rodn
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A problem w.r.t. the NFSv4 client's renew thread (nfscl) running up a lot
> of CPU
> when the NFSv4 mount is in a jail has been reported to the freebsd-stable@
> mailing list.
>
> I know nothing about jails, but when looking at the c
On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 00:38 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > A problem w.r.t. the NFSv4 client's renew thread (nfscl) running up a lot
> > of CPU
> > when the NFSv4 mount is in a jail has been reported to the freebsd-stabl
[stuff snipped]
> > >
> > pfind* does not do any filtering.
> >
Hmm, well I have no idea why the jailed mounts get looping in here then.
> > The real question though is why are you calling it in the first place. The
> > calls
> > I grepped in nfscl_procdoesntexist are highly suspicious - there is
While I haven't [yet] experienced this problem. A bug[1] just came in
on the amd64 list that is over a *year old*, and there are several
individuals involved. As well as several [freebsd] versions. So I
thought I'd raise the issue here. In case someone(tm) thinks they
know what's wrong/ what to do.
> On 17. Oct 2017, at 12:32 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
>
> I'll test it when I get home tonight. The WiFi here at the tech park is open
> so, I couldn't test here.
Tested:
hostapd 2.6_1
wpa_supplicant 2.6_2
No apparent issues with the ports, preliminary connectivity
checks work as expec
In message , Franco
Fichtne
r writes:
>
>
> > On 17. Oct 2017, at 12:32 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> >
> > I'll test it when I get home tonight. The WiFi here at the tech park is ope
> n so, I couldn't test here.
>
> Tested:
>
> hostapd 2.6_1
> wpa_supplicant2.6_2
>
> No a
27 matches
Mail list logo
