On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:39:22PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:> Horms wrote: > > The next things I will be looking at are: > > Checking off CAN Numbers > > > > I have put my notes in SVN - there is nothing private there. > > These include notes on each of 2.6.13.{123} and a list > > of recently released CAN numbers. I think some of the > > CAN numbers correlate to 2.6.13.{123} patches which don''t > > have CANs, but I have not checked. > > I can do so on sunday, if anybody has free time before, please go ahead.Thanks, I will try and do it tomorrow, but if I don''t then I almost certainly won''t get to it until Tuesday or Wednesday.> > It also seems to me that none of the patches in 2.6.13.3 are security > > related, I''d apprciate someone casting an eye over that. > > It''s not obvious from the code, but the description for > > | Stephen Hemminger: > | skge: set mac address oops with bonding > > seems to indicate that a user can trigger an oops by setting a MAC > address with ifconfig?I''ll take a look, but isn''t that a privelaged oppertion anyway? -- Horms
Horms wrote:> The next things I will be looking at are: > Checking off CAN Numbers > > I have put my notes in SVN - there is nothing private there. > These include notes on each of 2.6.13.{123} and a list > of recently released CAN numbers. I think some of the > CAN numbers correlate to 2.6.13.{123} patches which don''t > have CANs, but I have not checked.I can do so on sunday, if anybody has free time before, please go ahead.> It also seems to me that none of the patches in 2.6.13.3 are security > related, I''d apprciate someone casting an eye over that.It''s not obvious from the code, but the description for | Stephen Hemminger: | skge: set mac address oops with bonding seems to indicate that a user can trigger an oops by setting a MAC address with ifconfig? Cheers, Moritz
Horms wrote:> > > It also seems to me that none of the patches in 2.6.13.3 are security > > > related, I''d apprciate someone casting an eye over that. > > > > It''s not obvious from the code, but the description for > > > > | Stephen Hemminger: > > | skge: set mac address oops with bonding > > > > seems to indicate that a user can trigger an oops by setting a MAC > > address with ifconfig? > > I''ll take a look, but isn''t that a privelaged oppertion anyway?Doh, you''re right, of course. Moritz
Hi,
I have now gone through all of 2.6.13.{123} for 2.6.8 sarge
and sarge-security. And these changes are all in SVN.
2.6.13.{123} are in trunk/ (2.6.13)
2.6.13.{12} are in sid/ (2.6.12)
I will add 2.6.13.3 if it looks like 2.6.12-11 is going to happen.
The next things I will be looking at are:
2.6.13.{123} for 2.4.27
Checking off CAN Numbers
Assistance with either of these tasks would be greatly appreciated.
I have put my notes in SVN - there is nothing private there.
These include notes on each of 2.6.13.{123} and a list
of recently released CAN numbers. I think some of the
CAN numbers correlate to 2.6.13.{123} patches which don''t
have CANs, but I have not checked.
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/horms/patch_notes/?rev=0&sc=0
svn co svn://svn.debian.org/kernel/people/horms/patch_notes/
svn+ssh://<user>@svn.debian.org/kernel/people/horms/patch_notes
If you want to update them, please send me a patch or
commit straight into svn. Though I''d appreaciate an email to
let me know what you''ve done.
It also seems to me that none of the patches in 2.6.13.3 are security
related, I''d apprciate someone casting an eye over that.
--
Horms