| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 20:10:25 +1000 From: Nathan Scott <nathans@....com> To: Manuel Reimer <Manuel.Spam@...fuerspam.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is XFS trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16 On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote: > Nathan Scott schrieb: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Reimer wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> could someone please tell me if XFS is trustworthy in the latest 2.6.16? > >> There have been some bugs: > >> > >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6380 > >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6757 > > > > These are the same problem. 2.6.16 is unaffected. > > But the bug has been filed for 2.6.16.4. Indeed, once the corruption exists ondisk all kernels will detect it. Read through the entire bug, many details come toward the end. > Did you want to say, that the latest 2.6.16 is unaffected? All 2.6.16's are unaffected. > >> want a stable kernel and 2.6.16 seems to fit all my needs. > > > > For XFS, its goodness. 2.6.18 will be good too, and 2.6.17.7+. > > What exactly did you want to tell with this sentence. Sorry, but my > native language is german... Sorry, I meant to say "theres nothing wrong with 2.6.16". > Is it a good solution to stay on the 2.6.16 branch? Of course I could Yes, thats fine. cheers. -- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists