On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Olivér Pintér wrote:
> Q: It's needed auch to 2.6.22-stable?
I guess so: though SLUB wasn't on by default in 2.6.22; and it being
only a slow leak rather than a corruption, I was less inclined to
agitate about it for releases further back.
But your question makes me realize I never even looked at 2.6.23 or
2.6.22 hereabouts, just assumed they were the same; let alone patch
or build or test them. The patches reject as such because quite a
lot has changed around (there was no struct kmem_cache_cpu in either).
A hurried look suggests that the leakage problem was there in both,
but let's wait to hear Christoph's expert opinion.
Hugh
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
