LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2013, 01:15 AM   #16
Mark Pettit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64 Multi-Lib
Posts: 393

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
Is it relevant for Slackware? -current just upgraded to 3.8.11.
That is the exact reason for my original posting ! I do think it relevant. I also expressed a biased (and possibly selfish) hope that we'd be going to the 3.9 specifically because I have a use-case for a new feature in it. It would be sad, especially in the -current branch, to go back to a kernel that's a good few months old (ie a lifetime). I kinda think this is the branch that has to prove the mettle for the next release. There's been a ton of updates to 14.0, more so than I can recall for any other before, yet I get the feeling that there's no rush (or necessity) for a newer release as 14.0 is standing up so well.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 02:06 AM   #17
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
I vote for 3.4.x.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 04:21 AM   #18
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 145Reputation: 145
I agree that Linux 3.9 worths a try, though I'll not make daily use of it.

I can't tolerate anything before 3.6 because of rather poor USB3 support, nor can I live with anything later than 3.8 (incl) because the kernel crashes every time on Bluetooth DUN disconnect.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 04:34 AM   #19
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 2,343

Rep: Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377Reputation: 377
Pat has uploaded config files for 3.4 and also 3.9 in testing
 
Old 05-13-2013, 04:37 AM   #20
andrew.46
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 639

Rep: Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by willysr View Post
Pat has uploaded config files for 3.4 and also 3.9 in testing
Interesting.... so which kernel for 14.1
 
Old 05-13-2013, 05:01 AM   #21
STDOUBT
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Location: Stumptown
Distribution: Slackware 14.0~xmonad @ 32bit flavor on a T60p (2007-YS3)
Posts: 249

Rep: Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Pettit View Post
It would be sad, especially in the -current branch, to go back to a kernel that's a good few months old (ie a lifetime).
Good sir, forgive my ignorance, but I have never understood this sentiment. It's also the last thing I'd expect to hear from a UNIX greybeard. Distros that move ahead with core components which are essentially "in beta" have their place, I guess, but this is Slackware. I'm here for the stability, and the fact that I'm not left in the dust by failing to upgrade everything every six months or so.

Surely you yourself could manage to use 3.9.whatever in pretty much any distro including Slackware, given your expertise. I just don't see the point in agitating for it, especially in Slackware 'proper'. I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but dang! 3 months is a lifetime for a kernel version? I used to think the Windows upgrade cycle was breakneck...
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-13-2013, 05:28 AM   #22
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,231

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
Shipping 3.8 will mean no more security updates for that branch and any new vulnerabilities that come along will either force an update to a new branch which may be in god only knows what state, or leave you vulnerable if you can't move forward for any reason.

Shipping 3.4 will allow for new security fixes to be applied while remaining within the same kernel branch (subject to Greg K-H's best backporting efforts), but will lose us approx 1 years worth of kernel development progress. At this point in time 3.9 is pretty much an unknown (it's meeting my minimal needs, but I don't really put it under any strain).

The ugly truth of the linux kernel development model is that there are no good choices here. The *BSDs do this sort of thing so much better.

Pat has to choose the best of a bad set of choices. If it were my choice I think I'd go with 3.4 on the principle that anyone who wants anything more recent can always upgrade it themselves and it keeps the options open.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-13-2013, 05:44 AM   #23
ponce
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,314

Rep: Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816Reputation: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Pat has to choose the best of a bad set of choices. If it were my choice I think I'd go with 3.4 on the principle that anyone who wants anything more recent can always upgrade it themselves and it keeps the options open.
It seems to me too like the most reasonable choice, as no other LTS kernel is programmed yet (I'm also hoping this changes soon).
 
Old 05-13-2013, 05:56 AM   #24
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,231

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
I doubt we'll see a new LTS before Q4 this year. Greg has committed to supporting 3.0 until then and he's not likely to want to take on maintenance for 3 LTSes in addition to the latest and previous stable branches that he also maintains.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:12 AM   #25
Celyr
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Location: Italy
Distribution: Slackware+Debian
Posts: 314

Rep: Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
The ugly truth of the linux kernel development model is that there are no good choices here. The *BSDs do this sort of thing so much better.
+1
I pointed out this months ago and a moderator blamed me of spreading FUD.
It's not about FUD, I think that the linux development model it's just wrong, at least for a kernel.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 06:50 AM   #26
Mark Pettit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64 Multi-Lib
Posts: 393

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by STDOUBT View Post
Good sir, forgive my ignorance, but I have never understood this sentiment. It's also the last thing I'd expect to hear from a UNIX greybeard. Distros that move ahead with core components which are essentially "in beta" have their place, I guess, but this is Slackware. I'm here for the stability, and the fact that I'm not left in the dust by failing to upgrade everything every six months or so.

Surely you yourself could manage to use 3.9. whatever in pretty much any distro including Slackware, given your expertise. I just don't see the point in agitating for it, especially in Slackware 'proper'. I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but dang! 3 months is a lifetime for a kernel version? I used to think the Windows upgrade cycle was breakneck...
Hi @STDOUBT. I'm not yet a greybeard - I'm a sprightly 51 years old (and bald[ish]). Your point I believe is very accurate for the final (thus any stable) release of Slackware. But -current is never considered stable, or final (at least until Pat says so). So, it's the perfect place for a 3.9 kernel. Sure - add a 3.4 too, but as that's in the current stable and is well tested under that, there's not much more to learn from it. -current is exactly where we want to be under the circumstances - which are that 3.8 is dead. Someone mentioned 3.9 was in /test - I hadn't noticed that.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 07:38 AM   #27
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 688

Rep: Reputation: 274Reputation: 274Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Shipping 3.8 will mean no more security updates for that branch and any new vulnerabilities that come along will either force an update to a new branch which may be in god only knows what state, or leave you vulnerable if you can't move forward for any reason.
Or you just patch that vulnerability and be done with it. It is not Windows XP, it's open source.

Quote:
Shipping 3.4 will allow for new security fixes to be applied while remaining within the same kernel branch (subject to Greg K-H's best backporting efforts), but will lose us approx 1 years worth of kernel development progress.
You call it "progress" but newer isn't always better. I have still boxes running a "dead" 2.6.37.6 from 13.37 just fine and I know of no pressing security issues, which require a kernel upgrade there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celyr
It's not about FUD, I think that the linux development model it's just wrong, at least for a kernel.
The development model is okay, but you have to choose wisely as a distributor.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 07:41 AM   #28
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 688

Rep: Reputation: 274Reputation: 274Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Pettit View Post
That is the exact reason for my original posting ! I do think it relevant. I also expressed a biased (and possibly selfish) hope that we'd be going to the 3.9 specifically because I have a use-case for a new feature in it.
Then just upgrade to 3.9 and be done with it. Is see no reason, why others have to use a rather unstable 3.9, because you need some new feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Pettit View Post
Hi @STDOUBT. I'm not yet a greybeard - I'm a sprightly 51 years old (and bald[ish]). Your point I believe is very accurate for the final (thus any stable) release of Slackware. But -current is never considered stable, or final (at least until Pat says so). So, it's the perfect place for a 3.9 kernel.
But -current is supposed to be the next -stable. So at some point you have to stop testing new stuff and start the release engineering.

Last edited by jtsn; 05-13-2013 at 07:44 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-13-2013, 07:52 AM   #29
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
I don't know why they didn't make 3.8.x LTS. I don't like this decision, and I think it will affect some distributions.

I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 08:45 AM   #30
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,231

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
I have still boxes running a "dead" 2.6.37.6 from 13.37 just fine and I know of no pressing security issues, which require a kernel upgrade there.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.


Quote:
CVE-2013-1979: writes to unix sockets capture euid instead of uid

This appears to be a regression in 2.6.36, and the regression was
backported to various older stable series (2.6.35.11 at least). It is
almost certainly exploitable for root on most distributions, although
the vectors will vary. The fix is:

commit 83f1b4ba917db5dc5a061a44b3403ddb6e783494
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri Apr 19 15:32:32 2013 +0000

net: fix incorrect credentials passing
That's just one that is fresh in my memory, there may well be others (I would expect it to be likely after all this time), but I'm not in a position to say. As the linux kernel devs don't maintain a security errata it is very easy for the security impact of patches to slip through unnoticed.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Kernel 3.7.1 keyboard's dead RoyBatty100 Slackware 2 03-06-2013 11:41 PM
LXer: Openmoko Gets New Life in Brazil After Being Declared Dead LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-14-2009 09:30 AM
Dead kernel link B4lulu Linux - Newbie 4 08-28-2007 10:30 PM
Kernel updated, now Internet dead dmorrell Linux - Networking 1 04-26-2006 03:40 AM
keyboard dead with kernel 2.6.4 matrixfx Linux - Hardware 2 03-26-2004 10:06 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration