On 17/11/2022 01.32, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:04 AM Tom Rini wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2022 19.43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
certain
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:04 AM Tom Rini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 14/10/2022 19.43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
> > > certain file sizes - which is somewhat lucky, since
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 14/10/2022 19.43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
> > certain file sizes - which is somewhat lucky, since that's how I
> > noticed in the first place.
> >
>
> At
On 14/10/2022 19.43, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
> certain file sizes - which is somewhat lucky, since that's how I
> noticed in the first place.
>
At this point it seems unlikely that any more comments or reviews will
come, so
Hi Rasmus,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 2:44 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
> certain file sizes - which is somewhat lucky, since that's how I
> noticed in the first place.
>
> What I at first hoped would be a one-liner trivial fix
tl;dr: b85d130ea0ca didn't fix the CVE(s), but did break tftp of
certain file sizes - which is somewhat lucky, since that's how I
noticed in the first place.
What I at first hoped would be a one-liner trivial fix turned out to
be much more complicated and led me down a rabbit hole of related
6 matches
Mail list logo
