| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120315165812.GA10397@kroah.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:58:12 -0700 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Chris Frey <cdfrey@...rsquare.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 3.0.24 On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:51:08PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > > > When I read it, it looks like there are serious patches included in > > > this release, perhaps data integrity or security patches. But "must" > > > has been in an awful lot of these release notes lately, that it makes > > > me wonder if it is boilerplate. > > > > > > Just curious how to interpret this. > > > > Interpret it as written please. > > Perhaps it would help if I phrased my question differently: What kind of > bug makes you decide to write "must" instead of something else? This has been discussed endlessly in the past, please see the lkml archives for details if you are interested. It all comes down to the issue, how do you classify a bug fix as a specific "kind"[1]? Is there some reason you don't trust me in my usage of the word "must" here? If so, then please feel free to go through all of the individual patches, which I post, and make the judgement call for yourself. thanks, greg k-h [1] Hint, for the most part, you can't. -- 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