On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 1:24 PM Randy MacLeod <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2022-06-07 12:18, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:10 AM Ranjitsinh Rathod > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Is there any reason to not take this? > > I'm puzzled by this question! A patch with this subject line hasn't > > been submitted to the list for dunfell. > I see the original patch, with a timestamp of 2022-06-02, 08:20 ET. > Do you need it to be resent?
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been having some email strangeness the past couple of weeks. Gmail decided the original patch was spam and moved it to the spam folder (along with this followup) Seems to have gotten more aggressive in spam detection lately, since I see other patches there too :-( > > Also, the referenced CVE > > doesn't show up on the CVE report for dunfell. > That's odd. Are you looking into that or is > the CVE report ignoring it since only version: > systemd 239 <= v < 243 are vulnerable and dunfell has 245.5 This is indeed the reason it doesn't show up in the report: our version is not affected. Hence no need for this patch. > I'm woefully ignorant of the YP CVE report. Yet another thing to make > time for... Never enough hours in the day . . . Steve
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#167116): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/167116 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91497880/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
