Mike Silbersack wrote:> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: > > >>Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its >>various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? >> >>Scott > > > I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related > problems, so there is no need for a reversion. Since that time, I've seen > three panics posted: > > 1. Some netinet/ related panic which I couldn't make heads or tails of, > and I haven't any followup reports from the poster. > > 2. Maxim's buildworld -j64 memory kmap entry exhaustion panic, which can > be fixed by increasing the number of kmap entries. (Tor has a patch for > this, I will probably commit it soon.) > > 3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. > > (There's also a small problem with if_xl on pentium-1 machines, but since > it's my fault and I'm waiting on test results from a guy, we won't talk > about it.) > > (Hey, anyone have a pentium-200 and a 3com 905B card? Contact me, further > testing can't hurt.) > > So, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining problems related to PAE; > I believe that most people are venting frustration that built up between > August 9th and 30th. > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack >Ok, thanks for the update. Since it is 17 days after Aug 30 and people are still upset, the status was very unclear to the Release Engineering Team. So I guess we ened to solicit updates from the people who were directly experiencing problems, and ask for everyone else to test it as much as possible. Scott
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 12:14 pm, Ruben de Groot wrote:> Fortunately, there's allready a patch in the source tree: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/crypto/openssh/buffer.c.diff?r1=1 >.1.1.6&r2=1.1.1.7&f=hYes, fortunately the patch is there. I noticed however that in the version committed to the RELENG_4_8 branch, RCSID wasn't changed, so it's not possible to use ident to tell if your libssh needs to be patched or not (both old and new say 1.16)... Was that an oversight or should I be using some other method to determine if I'm running a vulnerable version or not? I also noticed the same thing with openssh-portable out of ports. Thanks, Craig
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:30:50AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:> Mike Silbersack wrote: > >On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: > > > > > >>Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its > >>various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? > >> > >>Scott > > > > > >I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related > >problems, so there is no need for a reversion. Since that time, I've seen > >three panics posted: > > > >1. Some netinet/ related panic which I couldn't make heads or tails of, > >and I haven't any followup reports from the poster. > > > >2. Maxim's buildworld -j64 memory kmap entry exhaustion panic, which can > >be fixed by increasing the number of kmap entries. (Tor has a patch for > >this, I will probably commit it soon.) > > > >3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. > > > >(There's also a small problem with if_xl on pentium-1 machines, but since > >it's my fault and I'm waiting on test results from a guy, we won't talk > >about it.) > > > >(Hey, anyone have a pentium-200 and a 3com 905B card? Contact me, further > >testing can't hurt.) > > > >So, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining problems related to PAE; > >I believe that most people are venting frustration that built up between > >August 9th and 30th. > > > >Mike "Silby" Silbersack > > > > Ok, thanks for the update. Since it is 17 days after Aug 30 and people > are still upset, the status was very unclear to the Release Engineering > Team. So I guess we ened to solicit updates from the people who were > directly experiencing problems, and ask for everyone else to test it as > much as possible.I was one the people who were experiencing stability problems after the PAE commit. I had several unexpected panics and could provoke panics nearly at will on systems that had previously been rock-stable. After the Aug 30 commit I have not had any panics at all and I have not experienced any other stability problems either since then. In my personal experience RELENG_4 is currently quite stable (not counting any commits made during the last 48 hours or so since I have not yet tested any of those), but it is of course possible that other people have run into bugs in components of the kernel that I don't use. (Note: I do not have PAE enabled in the kernel. I have no idea what the situation is for those who actually have enabled PAE, but any problems that may exist there is non-critical IMO since they would not affect any pre-existing configurations.) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
I was directly experiencing the problems with the PAE commits. Since
tegge's commits I have not had those panics. And for the record I was
never upset :-)
---Mike
At 12:30 PM 16/09/2003, Scott Long wrote:
Ok, thanks for the update. Since it is 17 days after Aug 30 and
people>are still upset, the status was very unclear to the Release Engineering
>Team. So I guess we ened to solicit updates from the people who were
>directly experiencing problems, and ask for everyone else to test it as
>much as possible.
>
>Scott
>
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"