myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
Date Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:22:02 GMT
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2010-4476-305811.html

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

> From: Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
> To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 12:16 PM
> Udo,
> 
> is there a link to their bug?
> 
> pretty interesting that they now fix it for almost
> everything :)
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Udo Schnurpfeil <udo@schnurpfeil.de>
> wrote:
> > BTW: The hotfix from Oracle is for 1.4, 5.0 and 6.0.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Udo
> >
> > Am 10.02.11 12:06, schrieb Mark Struberg:
> >>
> >> txs 4 the review!
> >>
> >>> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
> >>> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so
> abnormal.
> >>
> >> not abnormal but still moderately unlikely.
> >>
> >> I agree for a long term scenario.
> >>
> >> Basically the default should be to disable this
> workaround and to make it
> >> available via configuration. Btw, it seems that
> Oracle finally reacted and
> >> will hopefully ship a fixed JVM 1.6 soon (no help
> for Java5 users of
> >> course).
> >>
> >>> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because
> many
> >>> productive systems using it.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil<udo@schnurpfeil.de>
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Udo Schnurpfeil<udo@schnurpfeil.de>
> >>> Subject: About the JVM bug with
> 2.2250738585072012e-00308
> >>> To: "MyFaces Development"<dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:59 AM
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've some comments to the JVM bug for the bad
> number
> >>> 2.2250738585072012e-00308
> >>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3024)
> >>>
> >>> The problem occures for values which are "very
> very low".
> >>> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
> >>> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so
> abnormal.
> >>>
> >>> Would it not be better, when the hotfix is
> configurable (be
> >>> default turned on), so that the admin can
> switch it off,
> >>> when the JVM bugfix is applied?
> >>>
> >>> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because
> many
> >>> productive systems using it.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Udo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Wessendorf
> 
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> 


      

Mime
View raw message