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

David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se)
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:01:06 +0100 (MET)


On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Hans-Joachim Baader wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >I can certainly look at 2.0.x updates too, but I also suspect that the
> >people who REALLY care are the distribution makers. I don't have any
> >strong feelings about 2.0.x - although I _do_ suspect that you have to be
> >even more careful than usual, because you're not going to get very much
> >testing any more..
>
> There may be more 2.0 users than you would expect. I have 5 or 6
> machines with 2.0.x, and in our office there are 4 more.
>
> >The people who are still on 2.0.x are not the kind of people who are
> >excited about testing unless they have major problems, and THAT in itself
> >is a problem - it means that you get a very self-selected tester list,
> >which may result in exactly the wrong output from testing. So I would
>
> This is probably true...
>
> >suggest you only apply stuff that is "obviously correct" from reading the
> >sources and directed testing, but I don't care enough about 2.0.x to
> >really argue strongly one way or the other..
>
> I dont know much about 2.0.x problems, here's what I know:
>
> - driver updates for ncr53c8xx, network cards etc.

I'm not sure I'll consider such updates; I'll have to judge each such
patch on their own merits and the severity of the bugs the existing
versions has.

> - compiling a i486 kernel on an i586 machine may make the kernel
> unbootable or otherwise faulty on a 486 (binutils bug?)

Have you tried compiling using a more recent version of binutils? The
latest two binutils requires a newer version of binutils than specified
in the Documentation/Changes file; at least v2.8.1.0.23 should be used.

> - integrating the bootprom patch and swapping over NFS would be nice.
> (patches worked for 2.0.34, not for newer versions)

Hmmm. I'm REALLY sceptical here. Please send me those patches, and I'll
consider them. What you have to prove, however, is their general use for
more than you...

NFS-swapping will probably not even be considered.

/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/