Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:17:08 +0100
> Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi!
>>
>>
>>>>Would it make sense to repackage 2.4.20 into something like 2.4.20-p1
>>>>or 2.4.20.1 with only the critical stuff applied?
>>>
>>>There shouldn't be a huge need to rush 2.4.21 as-is, really.  If you
>>>want an immediate update, get the fix from your vendor.
> 
> 
> Sorry Jeff,
> 
> this comment must obviously be flagged with a big community-buh. It is very
> likely that most readers of LKML read/write here _not_ because they are
> looking for a _vendor_ specific thing, but because they feel to a certain
> extent as part of a linux-community and (partly) want to give something back
> for the good things they got from it.
> It is no hot news over here that linux does _not_ live because of 5 different
> (or more?) "vendor"-kernels, but solely because there is _the_ official
> kernel.org kernel (releases). 
[...]
> So IMHO: if there is a-known-to-work patch for the discussed exploit it should
> be released as _some_ (pre-)release for 2.4 quickly, and thanks must go to alan
> for taking quick approach on 2.2.


I think you misunderstand my point:  there was a patch posted which 
fixes the ptrace issue.  If you want to fix your kernel, there are two 
options:  either you are capable enough apply that patch yourself, 
otherwise get a kernel update from a vendor.  Marcelo is under no 
obligation to provide hot-fix kernels...

As for Alan, his task was easier:  Guess how many patches are in 2.2.25? 
  One.  ;-)

	Jeff