Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:00:52 +0100 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 |
| |
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:17:08 +0100 Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> Hi! > > > > Would it make sense to repackage 2.4.20 into something like 2.4.20-p1 > > > or 2.4.20.1 with only the critical stuff applied? > > > > There shouldn't be a huge need to rush 2.4.21 as-is, really. If you > > want an immediate update, get the fix from your vendor.
Sorry Jeff,
this comment must obviously be flagged with a big community-buh. It is very likely that most readers of LKML read/write here _not_ because they are looking for a _vendor_ specific thing, but because they feel to a certain extent as part of a linux-community and (partly) want to give something back for the good things they got from it. It is no hot news over here that linux does _not_ live because of 5 different (or more?) "vendor"-kernels, but solely because there is _the_ official kernel.org kernel (releases). For me personally I must say there is nothing I care less about than a vendor-kernel - not because I think they are doing a bad job _in general_, but because they are expected to be _less_ tested than "official" releases. My favourite vendor (which I won't name here) managed to create a kernel that does not even completely boot on about 8 of 10 of my test-beds. And guess what: replacing the patched-to-death vendor kernel with kernel.org release makes all of them work (at least boot correctly).
So IMHO: if there is a-known-to-work patch for the discussed exploit it should be released as _some_ (pre-)release for 2.4 quickly, and thanks must go to alan for taking quick approach on 2.2.
-- Regards, Stephan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |