From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed? Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 19:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5C5B5F40-3945-418E-B382-174FBA567922@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1243428717634103173==" List-Id: --===============1243428717634103173== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Since both - 'hostapd' AND 'wpa_supplicant' - needed an update, I sent in a patch series. Please see below "Patch 1/2 hostapd..." and "Patch 2/2 wpa_supplicant..."). Obsolete patches were deleted. I kept the two important ones. I hope its correct this way. Both applied here. Best, Matthias On 05.03.2019 10:36, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hi, >=20 >> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Matthias Fischer = wrote: >>=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? >=20 > No, those are not required any more because those vulnerabilities should be= fixed in the 2.7 release. >=20 >> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or >> previously applied) patch detected!=E2=80=9D >=20 > Indeed. >=20 >> 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. >=20 > Please keep those patches. It is fine that the lines might have moved. That= is why we have patch which takes care of this. There is no need to touch the= m if they still apply. >=20 > Best, > -Michael >=20 >> Any hints? >>=20 >> Best, >> Matthias >=20 >=20 --===============1243428717634103173==--