On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 10:28 +0900, Horms wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:35:29PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > > I think I'll go ahead and put this into our tree & revert if it causes > > > problems. > > > > It is better to add it to the s390 patch. > > Could you please explain why you think that is better. > I'm not sure that I understand the merrits of adding a fix > into the mish-mash of a much larger patch, rather than > leaving it separate. Does it have (a negative) impact on other > architectures?
Either way, we need to do an update of kernel-patch-2.4.27-s390 since the s390 patch will conflict if we leave the patch in kernel-source. However, its more straightforward for me to leave it in kernel-source & just rediff the s390 patch. I don't know how to add a patch to the s390 patch package (other than merging it into the megadiff, of course). I don't think dh-kpatches can handle multiple diffs yet. > > > The vulnerable code looks to be present in 2.4.27 as well, but I don't > > > see a patch in either kernel-source-2.4.27 or the s390 patch package. > > > I've tried my hand at porting it (below). Should we apply it? If so, > > > where is the proper place to submit it upstream - direct to > > > lkml/Marcelo? > > > > 2.4 vanilla does not work for s390 and it is not longer supported by > > ibm. > > That may be true, but isn't 2.4.27 s390 still in Sarge? > I guess we should addit to sarge2, but leave Marcelo out of the loop. Sounds about right; I might notify Marcello anyway just to make picking it up his option. At minimum, his tree would be a good place for other people to locate the backported patch should they need it - even though I can't imagine who would... -- dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
