lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: My thoughts on the "new development model"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 (2.6.8.1) (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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
| More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBf8AshDd4aOud5P8RAjwtAJ4je6e8ubxmnMJexVY0Db6JSNRPLwCeMvNY
HjEB1Ve+ZSdToiwPOsMJWnM=
=DJkR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans