| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6XY5++p7hJQpQdwrFNUcGbUsKpC+oJiZQciXNduo+8j8A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:52:29 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>, "backports@...r.kernel.org" <backports@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com> Subject: Re: Bumping required kernels to 3.0 for Linux backports ? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org> wrote: >> >> > The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of >> >> > the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is >> >> > completely fine with me. >> >> >> >> OK note that 3.3 is not listed on kernel.org as supported. I'm fine in >> >> carrying the stuff for those for now but ultimately it'd also be nice >> >> if we didn't even have to test the kernels in between which are not >> >> listed. This does however raise the question of how often a kernel in >> >> between a list of supported kernels gets picked up to be supported >> >> eventually. Greg, Jiri, do you happen to know what the likelyhood of >> >> that can be? >> > >> > I don't know of anything ever getting picked up after I have said it >> > would not be supported anymore. >> >> Great! How soon after a release do you mention whether or not it will >> be supported? Like say, 3.14, which was just released. > > I only mention it around the time that it would normally go end-of-life. > > For example, if 3.13 were to be a release that was going to be "long > term", I would only say something around the normal time I would be no > longer supporting it. Like in 2-3 weeks from now. > > So for 3.14, I'll not say anything about that until 3.16-rc1 is out, > give or take a week or two. > >> Also, as of late are you aware any distribution picking an unsupported >> kernel for their next choice of kernel? > > Sure, lots do, as they don't line up with my release cycles (I only pick > 1 long term kernel to maintain each year). Look at the Ubuntu releases > for examples of that. Also openSUSE and Fedora (although Fedora does > rev their kernel pretty regularly) don't usually line up. The > "enterprise" distros are different, but even then, they don't always > line up either (which is why Jiri is maintaining 3.12...) > > Hope this helps, It does! Unless I don't hear any complaints then given that some distributions might choose a kernel in between and given also your great documented story behind the gains on trying to steer folks together on the 'ol 2.6.32 [0] and this now being faded, I'll be bumping backports to only support >= 3.0 soon, but we'll include all the series from 3.0 up to the latest. That should shrink compile / test time / support time on backports to 1/2. [0] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/2.6.32-stable.html Luis -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists