by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 27 May 2000 00:40:23 -0000
	by edge.sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp (8.10.1/3.7W-1.11) with ESMTP
	id e4R0eH601823;
	Sat, 27 May 2000 09:40:17 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from taca)
Message-Id: <200005270040.e4R0eH601823@edge.sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>
To: thorpej@zembu.com
Cc: tech-security@netbsd.org, current-users@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: Foward: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-00:19.semconfig
In-Reply-To: <20000526164828.F352@dr-evil.z.zembu.com>
References: <200005262329.e4QNTJ601708@edge.sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>
	<20000526164828.F352@dr-evil.z.zembu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:40:17 +0900
From: Takahiro Kambe <taca@sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>

In message <20000526164828.F352@dr-evil.z.zembu.com>
	on Fri, 26 May 2000 16:48:28 -0700,
	Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com> wrote:
>  > This advisory says that the problem also exists in NetBSD.
> 
> The advisory is wrong[*].
Wow, What a good news!

> If you examine the code in NetBSD (which FreeBSD should have done before
> claiming that NetBSD was vulnerable as claimed in the alert), you will
> note that if the exiting process is not using semaphores (i.e. has no
> `sem_undo' structure allocated for it), then the exiting process will
> not block, but rather semexit() will simply return.
I didn't check code but forwarded the message FYI.  Thanks much for
your description.

--
Takahiro Kambe <taca@sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>