The bug is still present in Google Chrome Stable version: 5.0.375.86
Ben Hutchings wrote:
snip I think we should actually apply a second patch. So, please
try the two attached patches snip Please test this fix by following
the instructions at
Just a snippet on the Google Sandbox. From here:
http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/new-approach-to-browser-security-google.html
The entire HTML rendering and JavaScript execution is isolated to its
own class of processes; the renderers. These are the ones that live in
the sandbox.
...perhaps
On 29 Jun 2010, be...@elbournb.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
[ SNIP ]
I really would be happier if there were no root setuid involved in a
browser. Also I am not sure there is enough demand here to warrant a
change to the production Debian kernels.
Much as it hurts: The answer for me, at least until
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:05 +0100, Georg Borgström wrote:
Hi,
I tried to disable the sandbox mentioned in
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440 by adding the
switch --no-sandbox to google-chrome and the problem went away!
With the switch I don't get Not cloning cgroup
Hi,
I tried to disable the sandbox mentioned in
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440 by adding the
switch --no-sandbox to google-chrome and the problem went away!
With the switch I don't get Not cloning cgroup for unused subsystem
ns when starting chrome and no ugly crash
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Georg Borgström wrote:
Hi,
I tried to disable the sandbox mentioned in
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440 by adding the
switch --no-sandbox to google-chrome and the problem went away!
With the switch I don't get Not cloning
On 18 Mar 2010, b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Georg Borgström wrote:
Hi,
I tried to disable the sandbox mentioned in
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440 by adding the
switch --no-sandbox to google-chrome and the problem went away!
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 02:33 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:33 +, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and
most definitely not tainted with
Ben Hutchings wrote:
There are some questions on the Chrome/Chromium bug report
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35440. Could you
please have a look and try to answer them?
Chrome duly bug updated. I was able to do quite a lot of chrome browsing
including flash without
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:33 +, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and
most definitely not tainted with ndiswrappers or nvidia. I am logging
the report just
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:33 +, Berni Elbourn wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and
most definitely not tainted with ndiswrappers or nvidia. I am logging
the report just prior to
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.26-21lenny3
Severity: normal
This may relate to #542115. This system kernel is new (HP ML115) and most
definitely not tainted with ndiswrappers or nvidia. I am logging the report
just prior to repooting. System seems stable enough.
This could be pretty grim for
12 matches
Mail list logo
