linux-kernel - stable? quality assurance?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201007110918.42120.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date:	Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:18:41 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: stable? quality assurance?

Hi!

2.6.34 was a desaster for me: bug #15969 - patch was availble before 
2.6.34 already, bug #15788, also reported with 2.6.34-rc2 already, as well 
as most important two complete lockups - well maybe just X.org and radeon 
KMS, I didn't start my second laptop to SSH into the locked up one - on my 
ThinkPad T42. I fixed the first one with the patch, but after the lockups I 
just downgraded to 2.6.33 again.

I still actually *use* my machines for something else than hunting patches 
for kernel bugs and on kernel.org it is written "Latest *Stable* Kernel" 
(accentuation from me). I know of the argument that one should use a 
distro kernel for machines that are for production use. But frankly, does 
that justify to deliver in advance known crap to the distributors? What 
impact do partly grave bugs reported on bugzilla have on the release 
decision?

And how about people who have their reasons - mine is TuxOnIce - to 
compile their own kernels?

Well 2.6.34.1 fixed the two reported bugs and it seemed to have fixed the 
freezes as well. So far so good.

Maybe it should read "prerelease of stable" for at least 2.6.34.0 on the 
website. And I just again always wait for .2 or .3, as with 2.6.34.1 I 
still have some problems like the hang on hibernation reported in

hang on hibernation with kernel 2.6.34.1 and TuxOnIce 3.1.1.1

on this mailing list just a moment ago. But then 2.6.33 did hang with 
TuxOnIce which apparently (!) wasn't a TuxOnIce problem either, since 
2.6.34 did not hang with it anymore which was a reason for me to try 
2.6.34 earlier.

I am quite a bit worried about the quality of the recent kernels. Some 
iterations earlier I just compiled them, partly even rc-ones which I do 
not expact to be table, and they just worked. But in the recent times .0, 
partly even .1 or .2 versions haven't been stable for me quite some times 
already and thus they better not be advertised as such on kernel.org I 
think. I am willing to risk some testing and do bug reports, but these are 
still production machines, I do not have any spare test machines, and 
there needs to be some balance, i.e. the kernels should basically work. 
Thus I for sure will be more reluctant to upgrade in the future.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)