grsecurity 2.1.0 and kernel vulnerabilities

Posted Jan 8, 2005 18:41 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

So 2.4 is a real evidence that a stable serie are just better continued versions of the unstable ones.

"IMHO a real "stable" kernel, will result in it lacking features..."

How is that ?... i mean, if 2.4.25 was at the point where there wasent any more features added, if efficiently decided it should had been 2.4.20 or 21, then afterwards the tree could became 2.4.(??) stable-final, that is, no more features besides bug features and security holes mended(dont know but guess more features were added after 2.4.25). So what's wrong with this view ?

I mean, you should have had a closed stable serie, and instead had a live *real* stable-final for only bug, security holes, and drivers, and at the same time have the normal 2.5 or 2.6(stable)... If people wanted more features they should had waited for 2.6, and had helped more in its development, instead of trying pushing it to 2.4 where they fealt more save.

So in conclusion i belive is obvious, that a *real* stable-final, 'IF WELL MANAGED', will help in the general development of Linux, because there is a sure place for things like the ones discussed in this article, and more skilled and inventive developers will be pushed to the next *real development* tree.

And the well managed part, intentionaly in bold(sorry), means that a stable-final(ex:2.4.50-FINAL) au contrary of the development tree, should be very very carefully planned, and should have only *ONE* final version number, after the necessary " pre " ;... and the process shoul only be repeated, after a lot of consideration(ex:2.4.55-FINAL) if results were not at all satisfactory.

I belive the community has enough room now, and Linux kernel enough features(well above average for servers, not quit enough for desktops) for it to go smoodly, without vacating any of the trees out of developers.

Cheers

Marques