| |||||||||||||
2.6.32.9 Release notes2.6.32.9 Release notesPosted Feb 25, 2010 13:52 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: 2.6.32.9 Release notes by spender Parent article: 2.6.32.9 Release notes
Please stop this nonsense. If Linus (or whoever) knows about the possible security implications of, let's say, 10 or 20% of the bugs, and only marked those, the majority of security sensitive bug patches would just be ignored by would-be "experts", and the whining about the other "not reported" bugs would start whenever some box gets broken into... A bug in the kernel is potentially extremely serious, go and fix it. Questions are optional, patching isn't.
(Log in to post comments)
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 25, 2010 14:55 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> If Linus (or whoever) knows about the possible security implications of,
> let's say, 10 or 20% of the bugs, and only marked those the majority of > security sensitive bug patches would just be ignored by would-be "experts"
stop that nonsense. you have zero evidence for it. in the previous thread a kernel developer only offered anecdotal evidence which is of course as good as mine or anyone else's. you might want to understand who patch users are too: http://lwn.net/Articles/374094/ . also you might want to explain why file system corruption bugs are marked as such in commit messages whereas there's no guarantee that unmarked commits don't fix file system corrupting bugs.
> A bug in the kernel is potentially extremely serious[...].
it depends on the bug. and as we learned from local experts here, it also depends on what one considers a bug at all ;).
> Questions are optional, patching isn't.
you've never really had a real job, have you.
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 25, 2010 20:44 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Filesystem corruption bugs are marked as such *if people realise at fix
time that they are filesystem corruption bugs*.
Not all filesystem-corrupting bugs are recognised as such at fix time,
btw, nice to see you're vilely rude to everyone, not just me (and fifty
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 25, 2010 22:42 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> *if people realise at fix time that they are filesystem corruption bugs*.
aha. and "if people realise at fix time that they are security bugs" they... don't mark them as such. not only that, they even try to explain why that's a good thing. now you tell me why the same arguments don't apply to filesystem corruption bugs (and many others, i just picked an obvious one for this exercise). or more to the point, why the arguments for marking known filesystem corruption bugs don't apply to known security bugs. btw, i'm glad that after years of misunderstanding you're slowly getting it ;).
> [...]because at least there are broad regions of the kernel where bugs
anything that can result in kernel memory corruption, in those broad regions of the kernel included, has a fair chance to trash filesystem related (meta)data as well. speaking of which, by the same token if said memory corruption bugs are not marked for security, they should at least be marked for potential filesystem corruption but not even that is done.
> btw, nice to see you're vilely rude to everyone, not just me
i wasn't rude to you, you yourself admitted that you sometimes post under the influence of drugs that you later regret. i was merely wondering if the same happened here as well because you so obviously posted crap about something that wasn't ever said (you're welcome to prove your post with quotes from us).
> (and fifty seconds' googling would make it clear that he's had multiple
make it 5 seconds, but then we've got bigger skill differences i guess ;). and yes, i know where he teaches and it's also clear that he has no idea whatsoever about how a real corporation works where people have real responsibilities and the "Questions are optional, patching isn't" mentality doesn't fly in *any* production environment i've ever seen (hint: it's not how RH/Novell work either). but someone like you should know better than defending such a stand.
> He gives out his real name, you see.
this coming from an anonymous coward sounds just way too funny ;).
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 25, 2010 23:09 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] aha. and "if people realise at fix time that they are security bugs" they... don't mark them as such.And I agree that that is a bad thing, and have said so repeatedly, although I'd understand it if you were too busy sniping to actually read what I write.
|
|||||||||||||