On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote:We went through this discussion a couple of weeks ago, and I had absolutely zero interest in explaining it again. I personally don't like embargoes. I don't think they work. That means that I want to fix things asap. But that also means that there is never a time when you can "let people know", except when it's not an issue any more, at which point there is no _point_ in letting people know any more. So I personally consider security bugs to be just "normal bugs". I don't cover them up, but I also don't have any reason what-so-ever to think it's a good idea to track them and announce them as something special. So there is no "policy". Nor is it likely to change. Linus --
| Jan De Luyck | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Jesper Juhl | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #11355] Regression in 2.6.27-rc2 when cross-building the kernel |
git: | |
| Johann Baudy | Packet mmap: TX RING and zero copy |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Joerg Roedel | [PATCH 06/16] dma-debug: add kernel command line parameters |
| Joakim Tjernlund | ucc_geth: nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. |
