linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

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: <48FEEB1E.1030809@bytemark.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:58:06 +0100
From:	Alex Howells <alex@...emark.co.uk>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
CC:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

Hey Valdis

>> Requirements for me to put a kernel on a given server would be:
> 
>>     *  supports the hardware
> The problem is that "supports" is often a fuzzy jello-like substance you
> try to nail to a tree.  You mention the R8169 and e1000 drivers - if they
> bring the device up, but have issues under corner cases, is that "supports"
> or not?

Oh agreed, this is all very "use case" specific.  I'm making all of the
following statements based on the specific hardware we use, and assuming
'stability' based on the kernel/hardware passing a number of tests.

>>     *  no security holes [in options I enable]
> Similarly for "no security holes".  At *BEST*, you'll get "no *known* *major*
> security holes", unless you feel like auditing the entire source tree.  There's
> a whole slew of bugs that we can't even agree if they *are* security bugs or
> just plain bugs - see Linus's rant on the subject a few months back.

Agreed. No *known* *major* security holes is fine here.

>>     *  works reliably, under load/stress.
> And you win the trifecta - I don't think we've *ever* shipped a Linux kernel
> that worked reliably under the proper "beat on the scheduler/VM corner case"
> load/stress testing.  Again, the best you can hope for is "doesn't fall over
> under non-pathological non-corner-case loads when sufficient resources are
> available so the kernel has a fighting chance".  Doing 'make -j100' on a
> single Core2 Duo is gonna be painful, no matter what.

Well the typical tests outlined above are:

    *  random size file creation/deletion, lots of files
    *  memory allocation, and freeing up again
    *  stressing the CPU a bit with one process, then
       forking 25-50 processes to (trivially) test scheduler
    *  testing network I/O by rapidly/concurrently fetching
       many small files via HTTP, and a few large ones.

The end goal is simply to get a server which doesn't crash under
"normal" operating conditions.  The bugs I referred to in
e1000/forcedeth and r8169 either stop it PXE booting (a requirement for
our environment!) or can *easily* be made to oops / stop working.

Alex

--
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/