| 1 |
On Oct 26, 2012 3:14 AM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On Oct 25, 2012 10:08 AM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > http://lwn.net/Articles/521022/ |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > Links to relevant analysis. Useful comments. 'nuff said. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > -- |
| 14 |
>> > :wq |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Nice find, thanks. But the update to that article which gave a link to |
| 17 |
Theo T'so email is quite unnerving. He said that his initial hypothesis had |
| 18 |
not been proven and he himself is back in the dark. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Not much confidence in ext4 for the time being for me. Back to reiserfs? |
| 21 |
;-) |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Rgds, |
| 24 |
>> -- |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Or just don't update the kernel until it is fixed. After all, if the |
| 29 |
kernel you are using works and is not a serious security problem, just use |
| 30 |
it for a while. They will fix it pretty soon I'm sure. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Unfortunately, since Ted T'so himself couldn't even pinpoint what's wrong, |
| 34 |
how can I be sure that other kernel versions are unaffected? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Rgds, |
| 37 |
-- |
Archives