linux-kernel - Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years?

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: <YC55t1vkRuC9uXcx@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:29:11 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:15:11PM +0200, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > The only set of fixes that can be trusted are the "official" stable
> > kernels, because they are the only ones that are approved by the patches
> > authors themselves. Adding more stuff on top of stable kernels is fine
> > (and done at your own risk), but randomly dropping stuff from stable
> > kernels just because you don't think you need that is totally non-sense
> > and must not be done anymore!
> 
> This may be little bit off-topic... but stable kernel.org kernels
> can also bit-rot badly because of "selective" backporting... as in
> anything that does not apply cleanly gets dropped regardless of
> how critical they are.
> 
> I will give you one example: Intel WiFi (iwlwifi) on 4.19.y
> kernel.org stable kernels is currently missing many critical
> locking fixes.

Why has no one asked for the specific upstream commits to be backported
if this is the case?

> As a result, that in-tree iwlwifi driver causes
> erratic behavior to random unrelated processes, and has been doing
> so for many months now. My not-so-politically correct opinion is
> that in-tree iwlwifi is completely FUBAR unless someone steps up
> to do professional quality backport of those locking fixes from
> upstream out-of-tree Intel version [1] [2] of the driver.

Why does any out-of-tree driver come into play here?  What is wrong with
the in-kernel code?

> For me
> only way to get properly working WiFi on my laptop computer is to
> compile that Intel out-of-tree version. Sad, but true.

Why use 4.19.y on a laptop in the firstplace?  That feels very wrong and
is not the recommended thing to use the LTS kernels for.

thanks,

greg k-h