From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:27:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH] IA64,sparc: local DoS with corrupted ELFs Message-Id: <20060906202720.GA541@1wt.eu> List-Id: References: <44FC193C.4080205@openvz.org> <20060906182733.GJ2558@parisc-linux.org> <20060906184509.GA15942@kroah.com> <20060906191215.GK2558@parisc-linux.org> <20060906192511.GA14579@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20060906192511.GA14579@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Greg KH Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Kirill Korotaev , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Fernando Vazquez , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , devel@openvz.org, xemul@openvz.org On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:25:11PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:12:16PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:45:09AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:27:33PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:24:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > If MIPS and parisc don't matter for the stable tree (very possible - there > > > > > are no big commercial distributions for them), then dammit, neither should > > > > > ia64 and sparc (there are no big commercial distros for them either). > > > > > > > > Erm, RHEL and SLES both support ia64. > > > > > > Yes, but the -stable developers don't build for those arches, that's why > > > it was missed here. > > > > What's the easiest way to get coverage here? Sending a parisc > > workstation or server to someone? Giving accounts to some/all of the > > stable team? Finding someone who cares about parisc to join the stable > > team? > > How about: Someone from that arch trying out the -stable release > canidates to make sure it doesn't break anything on their arches / > favorite machine? IMHO it's even simpler than that. You already announce release candidates with what you intend to push into next -stable. Those who complain that -stable breaks on them just get what they deserve. They're free to announce the problem and even provide a patch in order to fix the problem in next -stable ASAP, but I find it a bit easy to complain about the -stable team that some fixes break a few rarely tested pieces of software ! I'd prefer that we get slightly more -stable releases with a few ones potentially wrong on rare occasions, than fewer ones which get released only once everyone agrees (ie mostly never). > And no, I really don't want a parisc machine here :) I have one right here serving my web pages, but I have to check that my toolchain is still OK (I don't build on it - 32 MB, NFS root). You don't know what you're missing :-) > thanks, > > greg k-h Regards, Willy