Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:04:47 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10 | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: pageexec@freemail.hu Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:51:31 +0200
> On 16 Jul 2008 at 3:31, David Miller wrote: > > > From: pageexec@freemail.hu > > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:23:50 +0200 > > > > > On 16 Jul 2008 at 3:08, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > IOW, when we fix security issues, it's simply not even appropriate or > > > > relevant to you. > > > > > > i'll ask again: why aren't security fixes that you fix relevant to users > > > of older kernels (as that's what the topic was)? > > > > Backporting any fix to older kernels is a chore, the further back you > > go, the harder and less fun it is. ... > > The tipping point is really quick to where someone hacking the kernel > > for fun simply isn't going to do it, nor should they be expected to. > > > > That's why people who want a stable supported kernel with fixes > > constantly backported have grown accustomed to paying for that service. > > and how does that imply that you should not mark security fixes as such?
You asked me why fixes are not relevant to users of older upstream non-dist kernels. And I answered that question.
| |