Re: [stable] Linux 220.127.116.11
From: David Miller
Date: Wed Jul 16 2008 - 07:04:59 EST
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:51:31 +0200
> On 16 Jul 2008 at 3:31, David Miller wrote:
> > From: pageexec@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:23:50 +0200
> > > On 16 Jul 2008 at 3:08, David Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > IOW, when we fix security issues, it's simply not even appropriate or
> > > > relevant to you.
> > >
> > > i'll ask again: why aren't security fixes that you fix relevant to users
> > > of older kernels (as that's what the topic was)?
> > Backporting any fix to older kernels is a chore, the further back you
> > go, the harder and less fun it is.
> > The tipping point is really quick to where someone hacking the kernel
> > for fun simply isn't going to do it, nor should they be expected to.
> > That's why people who want a stable supported kernel with fixes
> > constantly backported have grown accustomed to paying for that service.
> and how does that imply that you should not mark security fixes as such?
You asked me why fixes are not relevant to users of older upstream
non-dist kernels. And I answered that question.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/