| |||||||||||||
2.6.32.9 Release notes2.6.32.9 Release notesPosted Feb 22, 2010 17:45 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: 2.6.32.9 Release notes by spender Parent article: 2.6.32.9 Release notes
I fail to see any problem with the changelog entry. A range test was mistakenly omited, add it. Sure, this particular missing range check can have disastrous consecuences, just as there are probably a dozen others added the same way that are "can't happen"s or have little or no impact. The log entry describes what was wrong with the code, as it should.
(Log in to post comments)
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 22, 2010 19:33 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I think Linus went a bit far here. He was actually *told* that it would
have disastrous consequences, and shown how: he should probably have mentioned as much in the log message. This did seem to be played down entirely too much for my liking.
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 22, 2010 20:36 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
On the funny side of things, the 2.6.32.8 release reads like a plot of a Monty Python skit: a security problem was fixed after intensive scrutiny, but we don't know which one it was. Hilarious! :-)
|
|||||||||||||