On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:05:25PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Horms wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
> > > kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
* Horms wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
> > kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
> > two machines, and both machines crashed when running crash.c.
>
> Than
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:17:49PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Norbert Tretkowski writes:
>
> > I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
> > kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
> > two machines, and both machines crashed when runn
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
> kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
> two machines, and both machines crashed when running crash.c.
Thanks, I will take an
* Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Norbert Tretkowski writes:
>> I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
>> kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
>> two machines, and both machines crashed when running crash.c.
>
> This is related to Bug#262540. In fact
Hi,
Norbert Tretkowski writes:
> I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
> kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
> two machines, and both machines crashed when running crash.c.
This is related to Bug#262540. In fact, patch-2.4.26-3 has not b
Hi,
I just discovered that CAN-2004-0554 is still valid, at least for
kernel-image-2.4.26-1-686 2.4.26-4 from unstable. I tested it on
two machines, and both machines crashed when running crash.c.
Norbert
7 matches
Mail list logo