linux-kernel - Re: [stable] -longterm kernels (Was: Re: Patch Upstream: iwlwifi: fix skb usage after free)

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 May 2011 17:17:02 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [stable] -longterm kernels (Was: Re: Patch Upstream: iwlwifi: fix skb usage after free)

Hi,

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:58:55PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> BTW, Greg, perhaps -logterm releasing policy should be revised somehow.
> Currently we have .32, .33, .34, .35 -longterm, what is kind a much. If
> I could suggest something, would be nice to have longterm chosen
> versions predictable and constants i.e. one from every 3 kernel
> releases, like .35, .38, .41 ... . That would make distributions, that
> try to do release every half year very happy, because they will know
> what kernel to choose, which will be widely supported and tested.

Longterm kernels are maintained on a voluntary basis, which explains
there is no rule. We had 2.6.16, 2.6.27 and now 2.6.32 which were
initially announced as longterm supported. When Greg announced dropping
2.6.27, I proposed to take it over because I have some uses for it and
I know other people who rely on it. Most likely for very similar reasons
Paul and Andi volunteered to maintain 2.6.34 and 2.6.35 alive.

I agree it would be much easier for everyone if all longterm kernels were
announced early. Still there are a lot of users who can't easily upgrade
for whatever reason and who are happy with someone keeping their kernel
updated. I tend to consider that Greg's kernels are more "official" than
other ones, and if some backporting must be done by patch authors, I think
it should be for these kernels first. Also, .32 is not that far away from
the 3 other longterm kernels, so when a developer writes a .32 backport,
chances are that adaptations will not be too hard for the 3 other ones.

> Also
> developers will have a bit less work with backporting fixes, as having
> same bug in n and n-3 release is less probable, than having the same bug
> in n and n-1.

While less probable, I'm still amazed by the number of fixes from -master
that still apply to 2.6.27, and sometimes (but to a less extent) even to
2.4.37 ! The fact that fixes and regressions span that many kernel versions
probably is one of the reasons there is demand for longterm kernels.

Just my 2 cents,
Willy

--
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/