| 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: <20121019.160711.1159467896676133280.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:07:11 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: w@....eu Cc: bcrl@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:03:18 +0200 > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:01:04PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> >> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:55:57 +0200 >> >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:49:30PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> >> >> >> How about checking if these changes are already in 3.0/3.2/etc. or not >> >> before asking such questions? >> > >> > Because I didn't find the patches in 3.0 and Ben said he backported them >> > from 3.6, I think these are two valid reasons to ask, no ? >> >> Well, the thing is, I personally don't consider them appropriate for >> 3.x.y -stable backports, and that's why I haven't submitted them. > > OK. Is is because the issue is less important there or because the fix are > more risky than the issues they fix (or any other reason) ? I have a different opinion about the risk/benefit ratio than Ben does. I do not think these cases are important enough to enough people to justify -stable inclusion at all. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists