[Applied Oneiric] Re: [PATCH 2/2] [oneiric CVE 2/2] Change check_ruid flag to a more reasonable type

Leann Ogasawara leann.ogasawara at canonical.com
Thu Aug 11 18:18:47 UTC 2011


On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:07 -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 10:42 AM, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:28 -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >> I don't think this one is strictly necessary since it doesn't change
> >> code behavior, and needlessly diverges from upstream. A uid_t is an
> >> 'unsigned int' which is as good as a boolean in this case.
> >
> > John, before I go yanking this from Oneiric master-next, what's the
> > status of this patch landing upstream?  I'd assumed since it was
> > associated with the CVE, that is was making it's way up and likely to
> > hit stable (ie, we'd be able to drop it in favor of the upstream patch
> > later).  As Tim has pointed out, minimal divergence from upstream is
> >   the ideal scenario.
> 
> I sent it upstream but haven't heard back from tyler on it yet.  I think
> where this is going will depend on upstream.
> 
> There was a pull request for the original patch sent to linus and CC'd
> to stable but last I checked it wasn't sucked in yet.
> 
>    If the original patch gets pulled in then I see this patch probably
> just going to current and not stable.  However if the first patch gets
> NAK'd I see the two patches combining.
> 
> I agree with tim that it isn't necessary, it is really only syntactic
> sugar.  I would wait on this one, if upstream takes it we can pull it
> in so we match, otherwise just ignore it.
> 
> I included mostly to document that the uid_t mistake was noticed
> and the follow up patch sent.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll go ahead and drop from Oneiric
master-next for now.

Thanks,
Leann





More information about the kernel-team mailing list