From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266169AbTGNLPB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:15:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266018AbTGNLPB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:15:01 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:48256 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266169AbTGNLO6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:14:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:39:00 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200307141139.h6EBd09g000700@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, john@grabjohn.com Subject: Re: Linux v2.6.0-test1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > The point of the test versions is to make more people realize that they > > > need testing > > > > Are all the known security issues in 2.4 now fixed in 2.6.0-test1? > > No, and several more have been added in 2.6-test only. As far as I know, they are only information disclosure ones, not directly exploitable vulnerabilities, or am I wrong? > > This has been the only major reason for keeping of most of my > > production machines running 2.4 for quite a while. If not, can we get > > the fixes in at the earliest opportunity? > > Sure.. send the fixes to Linus Is anybody even keeping track of this, though? Picking thorough LKML to see what did and didn't go in doesn't seem particularly exciting to me. John.