From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932434AbXAGIkY (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 03:40:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932435AbXAGIkY (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 03:40:24 -0500 Received: from liaag2ad.mx.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.155]:52726 "EHLO liaag2ad.mx.compuserve.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932434AbXAGIkX (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 03:40:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 03:35:21 -0500 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.16.37 To: Adrian Bunk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200701070337_MC3-1-D79B-2928@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070104222517.GL20714@stusta.de> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:25:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > There's already a CVE number for > "i386: save/restore eflags in context switch". > > Are there also CVE numbers for the equivalent x86_64 patch and > "x86_64: fix ia32 syscall count"? Sorry, my Web access is broken for now so I can't check, but I believe that CVE number is for a different, older problem. So AFAIK there are no CVE numbers for anything I sent (but there probably should be.) Generic Linux kernel developers don't have a CVE representative, so we depend on vendors to assign numbers and sometimes they don't. -- "That's the problem with non-representational art: you can't tell which part offends you." --Stephen Colbert