| |||||||||||||
fixed in v2.6.31.1fixed in v2.6.31.1Posted Sep 24, 2009 19:37 UTC (Thu) by spender (subscriber, #23067)In reply to: fixed in v2.6.31.1 by spender Parent article: Kernel release status
If you saw the exploit you would have recognized even that I named it after you ;)
(Log in to post comments)
fixed in v2.6.31.1 Posted Sep 25, 2009 9:04 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] Btw., that you felt the need to name the exploit after me i found particularly telling (and somewhat amusing): it shows a basic lack of Git knowledge. 'git annotate kernel/perf_counter.c' is not hard to use at all, it shows who wrote what part of the kernel. FYI, i did not write the code which had the bug and which we fixed, and based on which upstream fix you then distributed a working exploit for. (I reviewed and signed off on it, and i missed the bug, so no doubt i'm part of the chain of review responsibility - this example just further demonstrates exposes your irrational hatred.)
fixed in v2.6.31.1 Posted Sep 27, 2009 10:00 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I'm not so sure about the 'irrational' part. It's not that you're hateful
in any way: it's that Brad's perspective is necessarily skewed by the work he does. He spends his whole time looking at the kernel in an adversarial manner, hunting for faults and ripping them open: of course the parts of the kernel which work well will fall beneath his notice, and kernel developers will come to be seen as a contemptible and possibly malevolent bunch of fault-introducers. I've seen exactly this symptom in some of the best software testers I've worked with: they find problems really well but very soon you wish you could hire someone just to sit between them and you and be a verbal punchbag.
Police officers are prone to the same failing: with shift work and long
|
|||||||||||||