Should we have a 2.29.1 point release ?
Michael Matz
matz@suse.de
Thu Aug 17 15:18:00 GMT 2017
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Thu Aug 17 15:18:00 GMT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): Should we have a 2.29.1 point release ?
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] Mark __start/__stop symbols as PROTECTED in shared object
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi, On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 14.08.2017 18:48, Nick Clifton wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > I realise that the 2.29 release has only just happened, but it seems > > that several important bug fixes have gone into the 2.29 branch, and > > I was wondering whether they were enough to justify a 2.29.1 point > > release. > > > > What do people think ? > > please could you backport the fix for PR binutils/21820? applies cleanly, and > tested in the Debian/Ubuntu system binutils package. > > Somebody (Gentoo?) is also fuzz-testing binutils, generating a lot of CVE > reports. Should these fixes be backported to the branch as well? I usually see > them with the Debian CVE imports at > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/binutils That would be very nice, especially if it's so short after release. Most of these segfault fixes apply cleanly, so putting the on the branch would be very welcome and easy (at least) my life. Ciao, Michael.
- Previous message (by thread): Should we have a 2.29.1 point release ?
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] Mark __start/__stop symbols as PROTECTED in shared object
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list