Let me know what you find
> The worry is that kernel developers are not paying much attention to
> these sorts of 'bugs'; they don't consider these changes to be a
> problem. I'm glad that my main immediate concern was possibly
> unfounded, but the content of the flame still stands.
This addressed to the kernel developers who dropped the attempt to merge
message queue improvements to 2.2 because it was causing compatibility
complexities ?
I think everyone tries to avoid stuff like that. Internal to kernel stability
is very hard to do. External API's should _never_ need to become incompatible,
at worst they will bite incorrectly coded programs tht perhaps assume a
reserved field will end up zero.
> 5.3 was riddled with bounds bugs that didn't get fixed until 5.4.
Actually the RH tree had all the security holes fixed. I never had good
experience with 5.3+linxuthreads and since this code ticks over nicely in
glibc Im inclined to assume 5.3 had bugs there.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/