lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10


On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> you should check out the last few -stable releases then and see how
> the announcement doesn't ever mention the word 'security' while fixing
> security bugs

Umm. What part of "they are just normal bugs" did you have issues with?

I expressly told you that security bugs should not be marked as such,
because bugs are bugs.

> in other words, it's all the more reason to have the commit say it's
> fixing a security issue.

No.

> > I'm just saying that why mark things, when the marking have no meaning?
> > People who believe in them are just _wrong_.
>
> what is wrong in particular?

You have two cases:

- people think the marking is somehow trustworthy.

People are WRONG, and are misled by the partial markings, thinking that
unmarked bugfixes are "less important". They aren't.

- People don't think it matters

People are right, and the marking is pointless.

In either case it's just stupid to mark them. I don't want to do it,
because I don't want to perpetuate the myth of "security fixes" as a
separate thing from "plain regular bug fixes".

They're all fixes. They're all important. As are new features, for that
matter.

> when you know that you're about to commit a patch that fixes a security
> bug, why is it wrong to say so in the commit?

It's pointless and wrong because it makes people think that other bugs
aren't potential security fixes.

What was unclear about that?

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-16 01:31    [W:0.104 / U:1.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site