From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266488AbUHBMQP (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:16:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266500AbUHBMQO (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:16:14 -0400 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:48568 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266488AbUHBMPx (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:15:53 -0400 Message-Id: <200408020317.i723HJbp007491@localhost.localdomain> To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Bernd Eckenfels , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: secure computing for 2.6.7 In-Reply-To: Message from Andrea Arcangeli of "Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:51:28 +0200." <20040801155128.GG6295@dualathlon.random> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 15) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:17:19 -0400 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli said: [...] > note this isn't a build number (the features in 2.6.10 don't matter at > all, the only thing it matters is that all security bugs up to 3503 are > included). Pray tell, how do you know if a random "compiler warning fix" isn't a plug for an exploitable hole, and if a "security fix" really does fix a real security problem that can be abused? Truth is, you can never know. So, this degenerates into sequential patch numbering, which is completely hopeless. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513