[grsec] grsecurity 2.1.10 released for Linux 2.4.34/18.104.22.168
j.logsdon at quantex-research.com
Wed Jan 17 05:56:46 EST 2007
I am puzzled.
In the latest patch (grsecurity-2.1.10-22.214.171.124-200701151353.patch just
downloaded) I don't see these lines at all.
Has the correction been made to the patch?
ie should min_t not have been changed to min anyway?
Sorry for my confusion but the response was rather ambiguous whether
(a) the kernel shouldn't be changed or
(b) the patch shouldn't be changed.
John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple
Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler"
j.logsdon at quantex-research.com a.einstein at relativity.org
+44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 pageexec at freemail.hu wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 at 19:22, harry wrote:
> > in the latest patch:
> > - min_t(unsigned long, KERNEL_PGD_PTRS, USER_PGD_PTRS));
> > + min(unsigned long, KERNEL_PGD_PTRS, USER_PGD_PTRS));
> > for ./arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c
> > this should be:
> > min(KERNEL_PGD_PTRS, USER_PGD_PTRS)); => the extra bracket is for...
> > hell, read the patch ;))
> > right? because min only takes 2 args
> > or it shouldn't be changed at all, that's a possibility too :)
> min_t is the right code, it shouldn't be changed.
> grsecurity mailing list
> grsecurity at grsecurity.net
More information about the grsecurity