From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 09:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <5C5B5F40-3945-418E-B382-174FBA567922@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <89b71e2d-a57b-bea8-17ba-aea45f4710c7@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4769219874422356128=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============4769219874422356128==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> w=
rote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7=E2=80=99?

No, those are not required any more because those vulnerabilities should be f=
ixed in the 2.7 release.

> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
> previously applied) patch detected!=E2=80=9D

Indeed.

> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
> numbers would have to be adjusted.
>=20
> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch=E2=80=99.

Please keep those patches. It is fine that the lines might have moved. That i=
s why we have patch which takes care of this. There is no need to touch them =
if they still apply.

Best,
-Michael

> Any hints?
>=20
> Best,
> Matthias


--===============4769219874422356128==--