Subject: [alpine-devel] 3.4 kernel for v2.4 stable?

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:52:49 +0200

Hi,

I wonder if we should upgrade to 3.4.x kernel for v2.4

This is not something we normally do.

Pros:
* The current 3.3.x kernel is no longer maintained upstream
* The 3.4 kernel is announced it for longterm support, 2 years. [1]
* We are not the first switching from v3.3 to v3.4. Fedora 17 already
  did.

Cons:
* Risk for unexpected breakages.
* We still have to backport grsecurity patches since they are not
  supported from grsecurity.net anymore.

The 3.4 kernel is already in edge and the 120820 edge snapshot ISO has
it. It would be nice if we could get feedback if that kernel works or
not. (I use it on my desktop and laptop now - so far no issues)

Any good reason to not upgrade to 3.4 kernel?

Thanks!

[1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1208.2/02624.html

---
Unsubscribe:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:51:31 -0400

> This is not something we normally do.

Anyone know what Brad Spender and the PaX Team intend for long term
support of the stable grsecurity patches?

I'd prefer that Alpine track either the grsecurity 3.x stable patch 
or the testing patch since upstream doesn't provide support for 
older or backported patches.

Neither option seems particularly attractive though - the former 
would mean a move to the 3.2 kernel and the latter a move to the 
3.5 one.

-dean takemori

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:28:28 +0200

> support of the stable grsecurity patches?

I don't know. But there is a chance that they might go for 3.4.

> older or backported patches.

Yes, but 3.2 kernel feels like a bad kernel.
 
> would mean a move to the 3.2 kernel and the latter a move to the 

Yes, not an ideal situation to be in.

I would still prefer go for 3.4 over 3.5. I don't think 3.5 kernel will
be maintained long.

I have backported grsec patches before. It is not that hard.

-nc

---

---

From: Kevin Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:07:56 +0100

> * We are not the first switching from v3.3 to v3.4. Fedora 17 already

I see no problem with 3.4 but I wouldn't track fedora for good practice,
they shipped grub2 beta which damages multi-boot setups and which was
explained in an entire paragraph warning of this in the relatively short
manual.

>   supported from grsecurity.net anymore.

I guess it would be counter productive now but wouldn't it be easier
for you to track 3.2 and the stable grsecurity patch or is the
backporting little work?

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:53:58 +0200

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:07:56 +0100
Kevin Chadwick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > * We are not the first switching from v3.3 to v3.4. Fedora 17
> > already did.
> > 
> 
> I see no problem with 3.4 but I wouldn't track fedora for good
> practice, they shipped grub2 beta which damages multi-boot setups and
> which was explained in an entire paragraph warning of this in the
> relatively short manual.

True, but at least would not be the first jumping to 3.4 for a stable
branch.
 
> for you to track 3.2 and the stable grsecurity patch 

That scares me even more. I know for sure we will need MTU and
routing related patches. I have the feeling that 3.2 is not one of the
better kernels.

And if people are using the new stuff (eg openvswitch, vlan netpoll
etc) those will for sure stop working.

> or is the backporting little work?

Kernels requires some work anyway. Backporting patches does not
normally add much additional work. I would prefer doing that than
maintaining the 3.2 kernel.

There are also a chance that Spender and Pipacs will support 3.4
kernel now that it is announced as longterm.

-nc

---

---

From: Kevin Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:55:34 +0100

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:53:58 +0200

> kernel now that it is announced as longterm.

This was back in January from Spender when everything was a little
unclear and up in the air so it's probably best to check out their
forums to see the current intentions. Let us know if you find out and
I'll do the same.

_____________________________________________________________________

"We have a thread up on the forums about this.  Basically, we haven't 
decided yet (and it seems everyone would like a different kernel to be 
maintained).  I know the PaX Team wants to do 2.6.32 and 3.2 since
those are what Ubuntu LTS will be based off, but others want 3.0.  I'd
like to be able to provide these all, but this is two more kernels to
maintain above what we're currently doing.  I'm hoping some more
sponsors will step up to support the work and demonstrate demand for
something which already takes up much of my free time.  If you know of
any companies that would be interested, please let me know."
______________________________________________________________________

Do you think he would appreciate any backported patches or would have
to check them anyway?

---