On Saturday 02 April 2005 19:38, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
>prepatch 2.6.12-rc1 [2005-03-18 02:52 UTC] does not apply cleanly to
>linux-2.6.11.6:
Its not supposed to, its against the bare 2.6.11.tar.gz output.
[...]
Its also the smoothest, snappiest kernel to come around in quite a
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
> prepatch 2.6.12-rc1 [2005-03-18 02:52 UTC] does not apply cleanly to
> linux-2.6.11.6:
>
No, it does not, it applies to the base 2.6.11, *not* to 2.6.11.6 - first
back out the 2.6.11.6 patch, then apply the 2.6.12-rc1 patch.
--
Je
prepatch 2.6.12-rc1 [2005-03-18 02:52 UTC] does not apply cleanly to
linux-2.6.11.6:
./net/ipv4/fib_hash.c.rej
./net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c.rej
./net/netrom/nr_in.c.rej
./net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c.rej
./sound/pci/ac97/ac97_codec.c.rej
./drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c.rej
./drivers/net/wan/hd6457x.c.rej
Greetings,
I'm glad to announce the MPU and noMMU support patch for ARM against
2.6.11.6 at:
http://opensrc.sec.samsung.com/download/linux-2.6.11.6-hsc0.patch.gz
Actually the patch was "armnommu" architecture patch by 2.6.9, but it is
just merged into "arm" architectur
* Ryan Anderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:27:53AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > Could you please add CAN IDs to the stable changelog for already assigned
> > > vulnerabilities?
> >
> > That's what I did for .5 -> .6. We can't retroactively update changeset
> > com
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:52:59PM -0500, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:27:53AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > > Could you please add CAN IDs to the stable changelog for already assigned
> > > vulnerabilities?
> >
> > That's what I did for .5 -> .6. We can't retroactively
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:27:53AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Could you please add CAN IDs to the stable changelog for already assigned
> > vulnerabilities?
>
> That's what I did for .5 -> .6. We can't retroactively update changeset
> comments, and I'm not sure we have any other candidates in
* Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In gmane.linux.kernel, you wrote:
> > With some pending security fixes it's time to for a -stable update. So,
> > here's 2.6.11.6, in the normal kernel.org places. This includes some
> > security fixes, esp. one which closes a local root exploit i
Hi,
In gmane.linux.kernel, you wrote:
> With some pending security fixes it's time to for a -stable update. So,
> here's 2.6.11.6, in the normal kernel.org places. This includes some
> security fixes, esp. one which closes a local root exploit in bluetooth.
Could you please add CAN IDs to the s
* Hua Zhong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > int bt_sock_unregister(int proto)
> > {
> > - if (proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> > + if (proto < 0 || proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> Just curious: would it be better to say
>
> if ((unsigned int)proto >= BT_MAX_PTORO)
the fi
On Mar 25, 2005, at 22:47, Hua Zhong wrote:
int bt_sock_unregister(int proto)
{
- if (proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
+ if (proto < 0 || proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
return -EINVAL;
Just curious: would it be better to say
if ((unsigned int)proto >= BT_MAX_PTORO)
Erm, it _would_ work,
> int bt_sock_unregister(int proto)
> {
> - if (proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> + if (proto < 0 || proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> return -EINVAL;
Just curious: would it be better to say
if ((unsigned int)proto >= BT_MAX_PTORO)
?
Is it faster too?
Hua
-
To unsubscribe from this list
diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile
--- a/Makefile 2005-03-25 18:26:00 -08:00
+++ b/Makefile 2005-03-25 18:26:00 -08:00
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 11
-EXTRAVERSION = .5
+EXTRAVERSION = .6
NAME=Woozy Numbat
# *DOCUMENTATION*
diff -Nru a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf
o isofs: more defensive checks against corrupt isofs images
o Linux 2.6.11.6
Herbert Xu:
o Potential DOS in load_elf_library
Linus Torvalds:
o isofs: Handle corupted rock-ridge info slightly better
o isofs: more "corrupted iso image" error cases
Marcel Holtmann:
o Fix sig
14 matches
Mail list logo
