[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1173392526.3831.12.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:22:06 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: jt@....hp.com
Cc: Jouni Malinen <jkm@...icescape.com>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: wireless extensions vs. 64-bit architectures
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:11 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> This is exactly what I was pointing out earlier. Well,
> actually, there may be ways of fixing it in the kernel, but that would
> be real ugly, and I don't want to go there.
Yeah, it would be extremely ugly and involve a lot of copying around
when the app actually receives the data.
> I've just released wireless_tools.29.pre15.tar.gz. This is
> supposed to include a "band-aid" for that problem. To the best of my
> knowledge, it should catch the problem and not introduce false
> positive. I would be glad if you guys would have a quick look into it,
> because obviously I can't test it.
I looked at the diff between pre14 and pre15 but have to admit that I
don't understand the code change. Unfortunately I can't test this until
the 20th earliest so it'd be good if someone else could test this.
Btw, could you look at the information leak patch I posted? We really
need to get that fix (or another appropriate one) out asap.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists