* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Hmm, having ability to read kernel data is not so nice.
>
> It's not like you can read any arbitrary address, exploiting
> such a flaw is in my mind theoritical. Let's not
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
> > unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
> > so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:09:04PM -0500, kernel wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
> >
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
> unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
> so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are clever enough to not
> trigger this bug.
> The second is
Message below meant for Marcelo!
(sorry rest!)
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:09, kernel wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > to upgrade, I guess...
>
> Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
> handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
>
Please
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> >
> > You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
> > of not pushing WE-18 to you (the WPA update). I'll stop updating 2.4.X
> > with respect
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > > to upgrade, I guess...
> >
> > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant,
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > to upgrade, I guess...
>
> Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
When a CPU-hungry task freezes
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
> > Extension v17"
> > is a critical feature.
>
> You
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Hi Jean,
>
> I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
> Extension v17"
> is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that "Wireless
Extension v17"
is a critical feature.
It seems more appropriate to declare it as 2.6 functionality ?
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
>
Hi Marcelo,
I did not receive any feedback on this e-mail either, so I
assume it was also lost on the way. Would you mind pushing that in
2.4.x ?
Thanks...
Jean
- Forwarded message from jt -
Subject: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17
E-mail: [EMAIL
Hi Marcelo,
I did not receive any feedback on this e-mail either, so I
assume it was also lost on the way. Would you mind pushing that in
2.4.x ?
Thanks...
Jean
- Forwarded message from jt -
Subject: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17
E-mail: [EMAIL
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
It seems more appropriate to declare it as 2.6 functionality ?
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
I did
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to you (the
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:01:16PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Jean,
I'm very ignorant about wireless but it doesnt appear to me that Wireless
Extension v17
is a critical feature.
You are right, it's not
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
When a CPU-hungry task freezes another one
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
You are right, it's not critical, and I was already thinking
of not pushing WE-18 to you (the WPA update). I'll stop updating 2.4.X
with respect to
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
Please *think*
Message below meant for Marcelo!
(sorry rest!)
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:09, kernel wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are clever enough to not
trigger this bug.
The second is a
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:09:04PM -0500, kernel wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 13:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
to upgrade, I guess...
Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully,
handles
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The first is the handling of spyoffset which is potentially
unsafe. Unfortunately, the fix involve some API/infrastructure change,
so is not transparent. Fortunately drivers are
* Jean Tourrilhes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:51:29PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
Hmm, having ability to read kernel data is not so nice.
It's not like you can read any arbitrary address, exploiting
such a flaw is in my mind theoritical. Let's not overblow
26 matches
Mail list logo