Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Andy Koppe]

On 13 February 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> (*) As a side note, what strikes me as weird is the fact that nothing
>    at all in the information about KB 2393802(**) points to a
>    vulnerability related to the CWD and removable devices.  Somehow
>    this change seems to be entirely unrelated to what the MS11-011
>    security bulletin is about.  I also inspected all other security
>    bulletins from this month, but to no avail.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd suspect a link with a recent
discussion on a certain MSDN blog.

;) Andy

Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Charles Wilson]

On 2/13/2011 12:43 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 13 February 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> (*) As a side note, what strikes me as weird is the fact that nothing
>>    at all in the information about KB 2393802(**) points to a
>>    vulnerability related to the CWD and removable devices.  Somehow
>>    this change seems to be entirely unrelated to what the MS11-011
>>    security bulletin is about.  I also inspected all other security
>>    bulletins from this month, but to no avail.
> 
> If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd suspect a link with a recent
> discussion on a certain MSDN blog.

Wouldn't be the first time.  Anybody still remember the old Microsoft
motto: "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run"?  Is it time for an update:
"Windows isn't done 'til cygwin won't run"?

--
Chuck

Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Feb 13 17:43, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 13 February 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > (*) As a side note, what strikes me as weird is the fact that nothing
> >    at all in the information about KB 2393802(**) points to a
> >    vulnerability related to the CWD and removable devices.  Somehow
> >    this change seems to be entirely unrelated to what the MS11-011
> >    security bulletin is about.  I also inspected all other security
> >    bulletins from this month, but to no avail.
> 
> If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd suspect a link with a recent
> discussion on a certain MSDN blog.

:)

For old times sake I re-read the comments in the blog and it's pretty
obvious that Raymond wasn't able to admit that his blog entry was not
overly sensible.  However, I don't think he's working in the dept which
works on the ntdll internals.  Isn't he in the shell team?


Corinna

Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 14 10:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 13 18:07, Ken Brown wrote:
>> > On 2/13/2011 12:20 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> > $1 ls
>> >       0 [main] bash 2220 exception::handle: Exception:
>> > STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
>> 
>> Yes, I encountered that at one point yesterday as well, and I have
>> already a patch in the pipe, but didn't apply it so far because I
>> want to do some tests first.
>> [...]
>> Anyway, I'll apply a patch later today.
>
>Nope, not today.  I stumbled over some other problems which require
>more debugging.

FYI, I suspect the problem is still there since you haven't fixed it yet.

HTH,
cgf

Re: Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Feb 14 15:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Feb 14 10:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 13 18:07, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> > On 2/13/2011 12:20 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> > $1 ls
> >> >       0 [main] bash 2220 exception::handle: Exception:
> >> > STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
> >> 
> >> Yes, I encountered that at one point yesterday as well, and I have
> >> already a patch in the pipe, but didn't apply it so far because I
> >> want to do some tests first.
> >> [...]
> >> Anyway, I'll apply a patch later today.
> >
> >Nope, not today.  I stumbled over some other problems which require
> >more debugging.
> 
> FYI, I suspect the problem is still there since you haven't fixed it yet.

I was going to write a funny reply but for some reason I just had no
idea for a funny reply.  So I'm writing these lines to inform you that I
won't funnily reply to your mail with a funny reply because my funny reply
service is temporarily out of service.


Sorry for any inconvenince,
Corinna