linux-kernel - Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:24:36 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	Alexey Zaytsev <zaytsev.a@...tei.ru>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Agreed. Alexey, did you identify a specific git commit that caused the 
> regression? Can we just revert that from 2.6.24? Michael, even if 
> _you're_ planning to remove bcm43xx we must not let it regress until 
> it's gone.

btw., if the best answer is: "do not enable b43 and bcm43xx at once in 
the .config because we messed up the dependencies and fixing it in 
2.6.24-stable is unfortunately too risky", then that's a perfectly fine 
answer for -stable. Then the fix would be to exclude each other in the 
Kconfig space (which is not risky). But just ignoring bugreports and 
NAK-ing a fix is not a valid answer.

	Ingo
--
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/