On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 06:00:50PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 19/02/2012 17:49, Nikola Pavlović wrote:
> > If it will feel you more confident that everything is OK, I too have -p3
> > reported from the kernel, but -p6 in newvers.sh. I remember a
> > discussion shortly after FreeBSD-SA-11:05
On 19/02/2012 17:49, Nikola Pavlović wrote:
> If it will feel you more confident that everything is OK, I too have -p3
> reported from the kernel, but -p6 in newvers.sh. I remember a
> discussion shortly after FreeBSD-SA-11:05-unix (maybe on
> freebsd-security@ but I'm not sure) about this confusi
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:17:59AM -0600, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Matthew Seaman
> wrote:
> > Here is the thing I alluded to under option (1). The security patch for
> > the unix domain socket problem came out in two chunks. There was an
> > original patch to f
On 19/02/2012 11:17, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> I hope this is the case, but that -p3 makes me think? I am hesistant
> to move to 9.0-RELEASE as of yet. There will apparently be an
> 8.3-RELEASE and I am not sure whether I have to rebuild all ports if I
> update to newer release. I have read some
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:11:09 +0100
Leslie Jensen wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if it's the solution to your question but I asked the
> same a while back and the answer I got was that I had to recompile
> and install the kernel then you'll have p6 :-)
The only thing you gain by that is that uname r
RW skrev 2012-02-19 13:59:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:22:57 +
Matthew Seaman wrote:
Four possibilities, roughly in order of severity:
1) None of the security patches between p3 and p6 did actually
touch the kernel. You can tell if this was the case by looking
at the list
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:22:57 +
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Four possibilities, roughly in order of severity:
>
>1) None of the security patches between p3 and p6 did actually
> touch the kernel. You can tell if this was the case by looking
> at the list of modified files in the
Hi,
On Sunday 19 February 2012 18:17:59 Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> I hope this is the case, but that -p3 makes me think? I am hesistant
> to move to 9.0-RELEASE as of yet. There will apparently be an
> 8.3-RELEASE and I am not sure whether I have to rebuild all ports if I
you could adapt my s
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
> On 19/02/2012 02:06, Antonio Olivares wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Robert Bonomi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Antonio,
>>> The 'upgrade' from _P5_ to P6 did not touch the kernel, hence the kernel ID
>>> did not change.
>>>
>>> Going f
On 19/02/2012 02:06, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Robert Bonomi
> wrote:
>>
>> Antonio,
>> The 'upgrade' from _P5_ to P6 did not touch the kernel, hence the kernel ID
>> did not change.
>>
>> Going from P3 you should have seen a kernel update.
>>
>> what do you s
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> Antonio,
> The 'upgrade' from _P5_ to P6 did not touch the kernel, hence the kernel ID
> did not change.
>
> Going from P3 you should have seen a kernel update.
>
> what do you see if you do "strings /boot/kernel/kernel |grep 8"
It is
Dear kind folks,
I am getting more and more as to what is needed to keeping a system
running in optimum conditions(updating ports & userland too). I was
just updating ports, but neglecting the new userland tools & kernels.
I have successfully run make buildworld & make installworld, and the
steps
12 matches
Mail list logo
