It is not the same thing, I think that you
agree on that, too.
>(note: the "bug" is not exploitable)
>
>Face it. For nearly a decade, /proc has been
>a critical kernel interface. This isn't 1991.
>(embedded systems excepted; they don't use procps)
>
>That said, I may do something about the issue
>simply to please users with messed-up systems.
In my opinion, you have to do something about
the issue, because it is a bug, it is not
a missing feature. But this is just my opinion,
you are the maintainer, you take decisions.
>> Once that bug is fixed, he will probably find
>> that the inability to read files in /proc also
>> causes a crash. Such is the problem with this
>> duplicated effort. It sucks.
>
>I could tell you about some inputs that
>make your programs crash... Nah. Find them
>yourself. I wait for your screams. >:-)
'Find them yourself', nice answer ;-(
It is a pity read this kind of comment,
I still don't understand the reasons
of this duplications of code and the reason
of this kind of silly sarcastic remarks.
>You finally fixed a SEGV that I fixed well
>over a year ago. Congradulations. You have
>others to fix, and a minor (?) security
>issue as well. Have fun.
Again, you know there is a problem but you
don't say anything about it.
You do not want to fix it, don't you ?
This is fine with me (even if it is hard to
understand the reason), but you are just
/wrong/ when you know about a problem and
don't provide information about it.
Again, this is just my opinion...
>Oooh... I think you have an exploitable
>buffer overflow as well. Anybody running
>his procps as an i386 binary on IA-64?
Ditto.
Ciao,
Paolo
-- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yrPowered by Outblaze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/