[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?????: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:17:43 +0800, Pavel Labushev said: > >> "SECURITY PATCH tag on a fix" helps me to know that there is the problem >> and I must consider the patch, check its correctness and maybe >> test/backport/apply it to my production systems ASAP. Just as another >> tags helps me to know that there are realiability and other issues I >> must care about. > > OK, now s/security patch/silent data corruption/ and tell me what's *actually* > different.
The consequences are actually and obviously different. Now, please, try to figure out that by yourself. Forget about Linus' point. Pretend you're system administrator and try to think like one. > Wow, you still need to consider it, check it, test it, and deploy it. Not exactly. > Unless of course you don't give a shit about your data. But in that case, > the security patch can probably be overlooked too. Hint: the data can be backed up. > That's Linus's point - if the patch is important enough to go into one of > the -stable tree kernels, it's probably something you want to install, whether > or not it's a security patch. Whether or not so-called -stable kernels are always stable - is another question. And not a last one - there are more. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/