* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 11:34]:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > severity 404143 critical
> > thanks
> >
> > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 01:27]:
> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:51:36AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Consequence: linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd63 (=2.6.18-7) is unsuitable for
> > > > release.
> > >
> > > Failing for you don't makes it unsuitable.
> >
> > That is a true statement by itself. This bug however has the potential
> > to damage hardware. Which is a critical bug.
>
> Euh, it seems to me more that the hardware has a bug which causes normal
> operation to damage it.
>
> As thus, i think that any damage done would be under the responsability of the
> manufacturer to repare or fix. This seems to be both the position of Bastian
> and Maximilian, and it seems reasonable.
>
> So, users of such hardware, please bother your vendor to either exchange it
> for a not broken one, or at least provide a bios upgrade which fixes the
> brokeness.
If a bios upgrade is a solution, the kernel could e.g. refuse to run
with a broken bios unless forced to ("runs if forced to" so that people
can do a bios upgrade)? (And of course, write about that in the release
notes).
I'm not saying the fix needs to happen in the kernel. But I do say that
if we must not ship software where we know that hardware damages could
happen on a certain platform - this is not a question of "who did the
mistake", but on protecting our users.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
