Re: [security] Big problem on 2.0.x? (fwd)

Pedro M. Rodrigues (pmanuel@myrealbox.com)
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:44:49 -0000

While i dont think that a 2.0.39 with just this fix is a good idea (i
agree with Alan Cox that only external vulnerabilities should be a
reason for a new version) i believe some sort of revision of the 2.0.X
kernels once in a while is a good idea. I myself have in production
environment four 2.0.X machines, but i am very forward minded, so
i can only guess how many exist in the rest of the world with
people more conservative than me. Of course the important thing
here is that such work could only be implemented under strict rules
and guidance from Alan Cox, but always releasing him and others
from the dirty work that is understandably frowned upon by them.

So, if things go that way, i am willing to give my help to David
Weinehall and others.

Pedro Rodrigues
Formtech AB
>On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> > Alan, would you consider a v2.0.39 with just this fix (possibly
>> > something else if something else has come up)?!
>>
>> If you want to become 2.0.x maintainer and fix this and the
>other chunk
>> of bugs then be my guest. I don't really have time to worry
>about 2.0,
>> 2.2 and 2.3.34.
>
>Ok. As long as everyone else accepts it. What does the
>almighty penguin
>say about this?
>
>I REALLY need to know KNOW whether people accept me or not.
>I won't mind
>being critised now, as long as complaints are laid out in a serious
>manner. If any of you has anything on your minds that you don't
>want to
>discuss openly on the list, feel free to reply privately.
>
>(Oh, and what "other chunk of bugs" are you talking about?! If this
>chunk
>is very great, I might get cold feet...)
>
>> > There are a LOT of people still using v2.0.xx systems, and
>releasing a
>> > fix would show them that we really care.
>>
>> Im working on the basis of only caring about external
>exploitable holes.
>
>Well, that's rational, I can agree to that. Can't help that I'm a little
>pedantic sometimes, I guess.
>
>Then again, there are probably tons of ways to crash a v2.0.xx
>kernel that
>won't get fixed. But this one has gotten quite some attention,
>that's why
>I want it fixed. There are probably a few more such.
>
>
>/David
> _ _
> // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander
> \\ //
>Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
>\>
>http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </

-
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/