On April 4, 2024 07:50:55 FreeBSD User wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled over this CVE regarding xz 5.6.0 and 5.6.1:
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-3094
FreeBSD starting with 14-STABLE seems to use xz 5.6.0, but my limited
skills do not allow me
to judge wether the des
On 4/4/24 00:49, FreeBSD User wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled over this CVE regarding xz 5.6.0 and 5.6.1:
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-3094
FreeBSD starting with 14-STABLE seems to use xz 5.6.0, but my limited skills do
not allow me
to judge wether the described explo
Am Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:06:26 +0200 (CEST)
sth...@nethelp.no schrieb:
> >> I have to report to my superiors (we're using 14-STABLE and CURRENT
> >> and I do so in private),
> >> so I would like to welcome any comment on that.
> >
> > No it does not affect FreeBSD.
> >
> > The autoconf script ch
>> I have to report to my superiors (we're using 14-STABLE and CURRENT
>> and I do so in private),
>> so I would like to welcome any comment on that.
>
> No it does not affect FreeBSD.
>
> The autoconf script checks that it is running in a RedHat or Debian
> package build environment before tryin
On 04-04-24 05:49, FreeBSD User wrote:
Hello,
I just stumbled over this CVE regarding xz 5.6.0 and 5.6.1:
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-3094
FreeBSD starting with 14-STABLE seems to use xz 5.6.0, but my limited skills do
not allow me
to judge whether the described
Shouldn't be a problem. The socket used for lookup is
AF_UNIX (uses unp_connectat) and the NFS socket
will always be UDP or TCP.
Different sockets imply different socket locks.
At least that's my interpretation, rick
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:33 AM Bjoern A. Zeeb
wrote:
>
>
> NFS root boot of a
NFS root boot of a Lab machine; calling wpa_cli:
Thilock order reversal:
1st 0x0001d4e1c800 so_snd_sx (so_snd_sx, sx) @
/usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket.c:4020
2nd 0xa020cb20e930 nfs (nfs, lockmgr) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_lookup.c:1083
lock order nfs -> so_snd_sx established at:
#0 0xf