* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Hmm, having ability to read kernel data is not so nice.
>
> It's not like you can read any arbitrary address, exploiting
> such a flaw is in my mind theoritical. Let's not
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
> > unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
> > so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:09:04PM -0500, kernel wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
> >
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
> unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
> so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are clever enough to not
> trigger this bug.
> The second is
Message below meant for Marcelo!
(sorry rest!)
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:09, kernel wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > to upgrade, I guess...
>
> Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
> handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
>
Please
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> >
> > You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
> > of not pushing WE-18 to you (the WPA update). I'll stop updating 2.4.X
> > with respect
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant,
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > to upgrade, I guess...
>
> Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
When a CPU-hungry task freezes
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
> > Extension v17"
> > is a critical feature.
>
> You
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Hi Jean,
>
> I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
> Extension v17"
> is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
Extension v17"
is a critical feature.
It seems more appropriate to declare it as 2.6 functionality ?
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
>
Hi Marcelo,
I did not receive any feedback on this e-mail either, so I
assume it was also lost on the way. Would you mind pushing that in
2.4.x ?
Thanks...
Jean
- Forwarded message from jt -
Subject: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17
E-mail: [EMAIL
Hi Marcelo,
I did not receive any feedback on this e-mail either, so I
assume it was also lost on the way. Would you mind pushing that in
2.4.x ?
Thanks...
Jean
- Forwarded message from jt -
Subject: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17
E-mail: [EMAIL
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
It seems more appropriate to declare it as 2.6 functionality ?
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
I did
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to you (the
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
When a CPU-hungry task freezes another one
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to you (the WPA update). I'll stop updating 2.4.X
with respect to
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
Please *think*
Message below meant for Marcelo!
(sorry rest!)
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:09, kernel wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are clever enough to not
trigger this bug.
The second is a
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:09:04PM -0500, kernel wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
handles
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
Hmm, having ability to read kernel data is not so nice.
It's not like you can read any arbitrary address, exploiting
such a flaw is in my mind theoritical. Let's not overblow
Hi Marcelo,
This patch adds Wireless Extensions v17 to kernel 2.4.X. This
patch is the same as what went into 2.6.10-rc1, except for the minor
differences between 2.4.X and 2.6.X. This was tested on 2.4.29.
The main reason of this patch is wireless driver outside the
Hi Marcelo,
This patch adds Wireless Extensions v17 to kernel 2.4.X. This
patch is the same as what went into 2.6.10-rc1, except for the minor
differences between 2.4.X and 2.6.X. This was tested on 2.4.29.
The main reason of this patch is wireless driver outside the
28 matches
Mail list logo
