| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8Stable kernel 2.6.32.8Posted Feb 9, 2010 20:13 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616)In reply to: Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 by nix Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.32.8
> It's hardly been hidden. There's just been an *entire article* on this
> very site about it!
no kidding. had you not been just trolling as usual, you would have noticed that i'd actually read that article and even asked a related question there too. but you can too answer what i asked Jake above: let's see how you figured out the security bug Greg was talking about based on solely the information he provided. btw, i don't recall that reading LWN articles became a mandatory exercise to learn about linux security bugs, maybe you want to submit a patch to Documentation/SecurityBugs?
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 10, 2010 17:28 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
So, in other words, your original question in this thread was purely
rhetorical? You already knew the answer? Yet you proceeded to ask the same damn question you have in response to virtually every announcement of any stable kernel here for the last two years or so?
That's the very *definition* of destructive trolling.
(oh, and, btw, have you ever made any constructive contribution to this
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 10, 2010 19:22 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> So, in other words, your original question in this thread was purely
> rhetorical?
no. it was also two questions, not one.
> You already knew the answer?
no, i didn't. i still don't in fact.
> Yet you proceeded to ask the same damn question you have
again, it's two questions and i don't recall ever asking the second one but feel free to find something to the contrary on google. in any case, it's certainly not every time given that it's definitely rare that a security bug is hinted at in the -stable announcement.
> in response to virtually every announcement of any stable kernel here
my guess is that it's less than one in a dozen announcements but feel free to prove me wrong (google with site:lwn.net would be a good start).
so now that your 'very *definition*' lost its legs, will you actually keep on topic and answer my second question? after all you must have had a reason to pick the amd64 bug against the others i mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 10, 2010 20:29 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, I picked the amd64 thing because it was a security bug. A
widely-announced security bug. One which you had, as you admit, already noticed. You wanted to know a security bug in this release: I told you about one.
(sheesh.)
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 10, 2010 21:30 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> Yes, I picked the amd64 thing because it was a security bug.
i see. so you're saying you read this in the -stable announcement. where exactly? also, since you seem to be a very sharp-eyed reader, what other security bugs did you see in the announcement?
> A widely-announced security bug.
define widely. the -stable announcement doesn't seem to be part of it.
also what do you have to say about security bugs that are not 'widely-announced'? how's one supposed to learn about them?
|
|
||||||||||||