User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account's road to recovery's road to recovery

Posted Oct 11, 2011 1:49 UTC (Tue) by jrn (subscriber, #64214)
In reply to:'s road to recovery by vonbrand
Parent article:'s road to recovery

>> reveal security implications you already know of.

> And the simple answer has been given over and over: "There are very, very few of those

Are you kidding? There are very, very many of those.

A more complex answer would be more accurate: "Sometimes people are sloppy or forgetful, sometimes they do not want to reveal how to exploit a bug, and sometimes by some strange fluke they actually do do a good job of explaining what a patch fixes". And while it is right to be concerned that some patches do a poor job of explaining their impact and why anyone would want the change they make (which is what a change description should do), mischaracterising the problem and helplessly demanding that other people solve it instead of, say, reviewing patches as they appear on the linux-kernel@ list and providing feedback to help their authors, does not seem like a particularly good way to improve, well, anything.

(Log in to post comments)'s road to recovery

Posted Oct 11, 2011 1:59 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Examples, please? You go around accusing people of dishonesty and lying, and have yet to show an example of said behaviour, let alone that it is widespread, and even less that it has a measurable impact on the kernel's security overall (which it really can't have, the commit messages are pure comments).'s road to recovery

Posted Oct 11, 2011 2:23 UTC (Tue) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]

Sorry, I don't really want to participate in a conversation like that.

I don't recall accusing anyone of dishonesty and lying, but if I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to have a pointer. Cheers.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds