Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25

Jeff Garzik
2003-03-23T13:30:32Z

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