[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD083E3.5080900@panasas.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:35:15 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC: <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <jslaby@...e.cz>, <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] um: TTY fixes (?)
On 06/07/2012 01:19 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> No, it works fine.
>
OK Sorry I missed that part. So you are saying that these patches
fix Fedora, but completely break other systems which now work?
I saw in your cover letter that Debian was fine with or without
->hangup() so I assumed all other system are more like Debian.
>> I don't see Alan's comment at all. This is not a regression it was always
>> like that. Ever since Fedora was working on UML, But these fixes are real
>> live regression crashes.
>>
>> And I don't see the all "leaving other vendors systems insecure". It just
>> a freaking UML tty. You need to be root 5 times before you have access
>> to all these, and it's only the UML that's compromised not the "all system"
>> And surely the current plain tty0 crash is much less secure then this thing.
>
> The "TTY problem" is not UML specific.
>
Exactly my point, so it is not anything your UM-only patches can do anything
about it. right?
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
I guess I will have to carry these longer. Can I fix my FC12 and FC15 so they
don't crash with mainline?
Thanks
Boaz
--
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