| |||||||||||||
Kernel.org's road to recoveryKernel.org's road to recoveryPosted Oct 9, 2011 16:20 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Kernel.org's road to recovery by malor Parent article: Kernel.org's road to recovery
How is not tagging a patch that might perhaps fix a security problem with a lot of explanation, which will take work to research and write up, "lying"? I'd prefer to have kernel hackers working on what they do best, not setting themselves up for all kind on accusations along the lines "didn't see the obvious [with 20/20 hindsight] security problem here!" and "totally incompetent, this can't possibly be a security risk!" leading up to "liar!" A kernel bug is extremely serious, period. Anything else, like a relative security layman's assesment if it could be exploited, moveover with little research and no real evidence, is just noise. If somebody wants to publish a kernel tree with CVE numbers and other decorations as notes attached to the commits, it is a free world.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||