Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Frank-Rainer Grahl writes: > Build needs to finish or it won't load. Run mach bootstrap from the mozilla > directory and follow the instructions for building Firefox Desktop. This will > try to pull in any missing deps. > > Also post your mozconfig but better in

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Build needs to finish or it won't load. Run mach bootstrap from the mozilla directory and follow the instructions for building Firefox Desktop. This will try to pull in any missing deps. Also post your mozconfig but better in mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey. FRG Richmond wrote: Frank-Rainer

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Frank-Rainer Grahl writes: > If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and > just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 > Update 3. > > Full build will take around 3h to 5h on my Thinkpad X200s and 30 to 40 > minutes on my desktop. Both

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Mason83 writes: > On 07/12/2016 16:13, Richmond wrote: > >> diff -e firefox-50.0.1/dom/smil/nsSMILTimeContainer.cpp >> firefox-50.0.2/dom/smil/nsSMILTimeContainer.cpp > > Hold up! Hold up! > > Who uses diff -e ?! I guess it's just me then. > > I'm used to diff -u and diff -c

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 19:04, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Why would build be much faster native vs in a VM? There is always overhead in an VM. And Virtualbox isn't that good at managing the virtual CPUs. On the desktop I could assign 12 physical cores but more that 8 and it does not

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 12/7/2016 1:59 PM, Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 20:37, TCW wrote: On 12/7/2016 1:04 PM, Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 19:04, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 07/12/2016 20:37, TCW wrote: > On 12/7/2016 1:04 PM, Mason83 wrote: >> On 07/12/2016 19:04, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: >> >>> If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and >>> just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 Update 3. >>> >>> Full build

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 12/7/2016 1:04 PM, Mason83 wrote: On 07/12/2016 19:04, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 Update 3. Full build will take around 3h to 5h on my Thinkpad X200s and 30

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 07/12/2016 16:13, Richmond wrote: > diff -e firefox-50.0.1/dom/smil/nsSMILTimeContainer.cpp > firefox-50.0.2/dom/smil/nsSMILTimeContainer.cpp Hold up! Hold up! Who uses diff -e ?! I'm used to diff -u and diff -c (to a lesser extent) Are there situations where you feel diff -e is better

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 07/12/2016 18:07, TCW wrote: > Even if you get the right snippet of code that fixes the issue, it may > depend on other bits of code and fall over. This is an instance where > grafting in the code probably will fail. I disagree. The whole point of having a source control system like

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 07/12/2016 19:04, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: > If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and > just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 Update 3. > > Full build will take around 3h to 5h on my Thinkpad X200s and 30 to 40 > minutes on my

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

If you have a working build environment save yourself the trouble and just build from comm-release. 2.47 is stable but requires VS2015 Update 3. Full build will take around 3h to 5h on my Thinkpad X200s and 30 to 40 minutes on my desktop. Both in a vm. Native sure is faster. FRG Richmond

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

WaltS48 wrote on 12/07/2016 06:23 PM: On 12/07/2016 12:07 PM, TCW wrote: On 12/7/2016 9:13 AM, Richmond wrote: Here is the patch from firefox 50.0.2. The file is identical in seamonkey so I should just be able to apply this and compile. Unfortunately my laptop may never finish compiling. Why

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 12/07/2016 12:07 PM, TCW wrote: On 12/7/2016 9:13 AM, Richmond wrote: Here is the patch from firefox 50.0.2. The file is identical in seamonkey so I should just be able to apply this and compile. Unfortunately my laptop may never finish compiling. Why am I doing this? I have no idea really.

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 12/7/2016 9:13 AM, Richmond wrote: Here is the patch from firefox 50.0.2. The file is identical in seamonkey so I should just be able to apply this and compile. Unfortunately my laptop may never finish compiling. Why am I doing this? I have no idea really. diff -e

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Here is the patch from firefox 50.0.2. The file is identical in seamonkey so I should just be able to apply this and compile. Unfortunately my laptop may never finish compiling. Why am I doing this? I have no idea really. diff -e firefox-50.0.1/dom/smil/nsSMILTimeContainer.cpp

Re: source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

On 12/6/2016 8:09 AM, Richmond wrote: Is there a source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day which I can apply to seamonkey 2.40? Whether it be to fix it, or cause it to crash safely. No there is not. It is built into Adrian's 2.47 build. Adrian is one of the Mozilla team who has been

source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day?

Is there a source code patch for cve-2016-9079 svg zero day which I can apply to seamonkey 2.40? Whether it be to fix it, or cause it to crash safely. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org