linux-kernel - Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200611110715.49343.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> wrote:
> > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > The problem is not just simple bugs that surface, it's deeper than
> > > > that. Deep structural problems is what plagues 2.6.
> > > >
> > > > Only a focused model may deal with such problems.
> > >
> > > can you at least provide a list of such structural problems?
> > > In fact, why don't you collect them and mail them out (bi)weekly...
> > > that may already do wonders.
> > > Look at what Adrian is doing with the regressions; although the
> > > response isn't 100% people DO pay attention to it.... so maybe if you
> > > post a "structural problems list" people will actually start working
> > > on things.. (and of course you can help too ;)
> >
> > Ok, things like OOM, scheduling, and block-io.
>
> If you want stability don't change these.  But if you think you
> have better heuristics propose them for discussion.

I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of 
discussion.  What is needed, is a realization of the problem.

IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state of 
their trees, problem or not.  If it has a problem, that problem needs to be 
fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev.

> > net looks ok, although I would suggest a redesign for 3.0.
>
> Facts, no vague pronouncements please.

I meant structural OSI compliance.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/