linux-kernel - Re: Bumping required kernels to 3.0 for Linux backports ?

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: <5346CF27.3070406@broadcom.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:04:39 +0200
From:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
CC:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	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 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai<tiwai@...e.de>  wrote:
>> At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why 3.0?  That's not supported by anyone anymore for "new hardware", I'd
>>> move to 3.2 if you could, as that's the Debian stable release that will
>>> be maintained for quite some time yet:
>>>        https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
>>
>> Well, the support for "new hardware" is what backports project itself
>> does, isn't it?
>>
>> Besides, SLES11 is still supported, so yes, including 3.0.x would be
>> helpful.
>
> That's two stakeholders for 3.0 -- but nothing is voiced for anything
> older than that. Today I will rip the older kernels into oblivion.
> Thanks for all the feedback!

Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used 
over here. I am probably alone in that desert.

Regards,
Arend

>   Luis
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
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/