[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: My thoughts on the "new development model"
    Hash: SHA1

    Theodore Ts'o wrote:
    | On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:48:01AM -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
    |>I for one don't give a damn. Bugs and how fast this development model
    |>fix them aren't a concern to me; although I'd never slow down the bug
    |>fixing process. My concern is getting a real stable tree for various
    |>maintainers to base on, so that various patches for drivers, security
    |>enhancements, and other things aren't scattered across versions and
    |>impossible to patch together even when they're noninvasive to eachother.
    |>Have you stopped to consider that the features that are critical to me
    |>are also holding me back from upgrading to the newer kernels?
    |>Ironically, these are security features, and the newer kernels have
    |>newer security fixes aside from new schedulers and other toys I could
    |>really enjoy having around.
    | So instead of kvetching, why don't you
    | (a) Create your own stable series by snapshotting some 2.6.x tree
    | every six months, and then maintain a set of bug-fix only patches
    | against that 2.6.x tree? Then convince the security people to port to
    | that particular 2.6.x-jrm tree?

    - - Convince the security people
    - -- PaX, GrSecurity (2.6.7)
    - -- LIDS ( (not my problem)
    - -- RSBAC (The author works his ass off, 2.6.6-9)
    - - Convince VM hacker projects
    - -- linuxcompressed is dead anyway; but they'd have a hard time keeping
    ~ up; there's been VM changes a few times already ne?
    - - Convince filesystem and driver projects. No particular examples,
    ~ although I could see things happening that would affect them (another
    ~ reason why we need a fully upwards-compatible driver ABI)

    | (b) Convince the security folks to try to get their patches into the
    | mm- tree, for eventual inclusion into 2.6.

    I've tried that. They don't want to. I don't blame them.

    What I *am* aiming for is getting a few security enhancements included
    in mainline for several Linux distributions, starting with Debian and
    Ubuntu. This will predictibly create a blockage at 2.6.7 (where
    PaX/GRSec are, since those are a major part of the scheme); they won't
    be able to upgrade past there without losing a major protection, and the
    authors will likely continue to simply sit around and wait for 2.6 to
    stop changing so damn much.

    | (c) Some combination of the two.
    | Either would probably be more likely to fulfill your needs than just
    | whining about it.
    | - Ted
    | -
    | To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    | the body of a message to
    | More majordomo info at
    | Please read the FAQ at

    - --
    All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
    Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

    Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.022 / U:2.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site