3 ms·
I'm just disagreeing that the patches are the same. I agree that Miculas did do the hard work by finding the cause of the issue in the first place - but he's co
by sdflhasjd 3y ago
I'm just disagreeing that the patches are the same. I agree that Miculas did do the hard work by finding the cause of the issue in the first place - but he's correctly credited as the reporter.
As for the clean patch - part of the issue is that Miculas was slightly overengineering some of it with the additional macros and added noise with extra conditions on the fpidx declaration.
Ellerman's "I don't want to coach this rookie" vibe is somewhat understandable given this is the security mailing list - it's just not the time and the place to be going back-and-forth.
- camgunz 3y agoI generally agree and gave you an upvote. The macros up top were hard for me to grok too, mostly I was reading it thinking, "why isn't this just a cast" and it turns out is could be! And I get this is the security mailing list, but it's 32-bit PPC, and they took days to really get to it. FWIW I think Ariel was being overly cautious; it's hard to see how this could be a significant security issue, and it feels counterproductive to punish him for being cautious. I can kind of see both sides, but I just can't get over doing all the work Ariel did and only getting a "Reported by" credit. His feelings are justified IMO.