* Greg KH:
> the logic is a little different in 2.6.22 and earlier in regards to this
> area of code. This way we are safer.
Your patch doesn't include the CVE-2006-0010 hunk. Is this because
get_user() implies an access_ok() check (while __copy_from_user()
obviously does not)?
--
To
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 06:48:42PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Greg KH:
>
> > the logic is a little different in 2.6.22 and earlier in regards to this
> > area of code. This way we are safer.
>
> Your patch doesn't include the CVE-2006-0010 hunk. Is this because
> get_user() implies an
* Greg KH:
the logic is a little different in 2.6.22 and earlier in regards to this
area of code. This way we are safer.
Your patch doesn't include the CVE-2006-0010 hunk. Is this because
get_user() implies an access_ok() check (while __copy_from_user()
obviously does not)?
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 06:48:42PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Greg KH:
the logic is a little different in 2.6.22 and earlier in regards to this
area of code. This way we are safer.
Your patch doesn't include the CVE-2006-0010 hunk. Is this because
get_user() implies an access_ok()
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Matthew Keenan wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there are reason that the patch
> for 2.6.22 differs from 2.6.2[34]? The "if(unlikely(!base))" is removed
> in the latter.
No real reason, except that there are simply two versions of the patches
floating
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:31:25AM +, Matthew Keenan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:43 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index 6a949eb..99c5e87 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > VERSION = 2
> > PATCHLEVEL = 6
>
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:43 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 6a949eb..99c5e87 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> VERSION = 2
> PATCHLEVEL = 6
> SUBLEVEL = 22
> -EXTRAVERSION = .17
> +EXTRAVERSION = .18
> NAME = Holy Dancing
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:43 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 6a949eb..99c5e87 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 22
-EXTRAVERSION = .17
+EXTRAVERSION = .18
NAME = Holy Dancing Manatees,
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Matthew Keenan wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there are reason that the patch
for 2.6.22 differs from 2.6.2[34]? The if(unlikely(!base)) is removed
in the latter.
No real reason, except that there are simply two versions of the patches
floating
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 6a949eb..99c5e87 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 22
-EXTRAVERSION = .17
+EXTRAVERSION = .18
NAME = Holy Dancing Manatees, Batman!
# *DOCUMENTATION*
diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
index
-0600)
Greg Kroah-Hartman (1):
Linux 2.6.22.18
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-0600)
Greg Kroah-Hartman (1):
Linux 2.6.22.18
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 6a949eb..99c5e87 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 22
-EXTRAVERSION = .17
+EXTRAVERSION = .18
NAME = Holy Dancing Manatees, Batman!
# *DOCUMENTATION*
diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
index
13 matches
Mail list logo