The current 2.6 development kernel is 2.6.26-rc5, released on June 4. As is usual
at this point in the release cycle, it is mostly bug fixes and the
like. There are a fair number of changes in the core kernel code, mostly
for scheduler issues, including some reverts for some performance
regressions. "Another week, another batch of mostly pretty small
fixes. Hopefully the regression list is shrinking, and we've fixed at least
a couple of the oopses on Arjan's list." See the long-format
all the details. A 2.6.26-rc6 release is probably coming soon.
The current -mm tree is 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 which is a bug
fix for 2.6.26-rc5-mm1, also
released this week. The main additions are the unprivileged mounts tree
and a "large number of deep changes to memory management."
The current stable 2.6 kernel is 18.104.22.168, released on June 9. It has a whole
pile of bugfixes, with none that are specifically called out as security
related. "It contains a number of assorted bugfixes all over the
tree. Users are encouraged to update." See the LWN announcement for some
discussion about potential security issues with this release. Also, note
that 22.214.171.124 was released on
June 7 with "one security bug fix. If you are using CIFS or SNMP NAT
you could be vulnerable and are encouraged to upgrade."
For older kernels: 126.96.36.199 was released on June
6. "It only fixes a vulnerability in the netfilter ip_nat_snmp_basic
(CVE-2008-1673). If you don't use it, you don't need to upgrade."
Comments (2 posted)
Kernel development news
There's a new kernel tree in town. The linux-staging tree was announced by Greg Kroah-Hartman
on 10 June. It is meant to hold drivers and other kernel patches that are
working their way toward the mainline, but still have a ways to go. The
intention is to collect them all together in one tree to make access and
testing easier for interested developers.
According to Kroah-Hartman, linux-staging (or -staging as it will
be known) "is an outgrowth of the Linux Driver Project, and the fact
there have been some complaints that there is no place for individual
drivers to sit while they get cleaned up and into the proper shape for
merging." By collecting the patches in one place, it will increase
their visibility in the kernel community, potentially attracting more
developers to assist in fixing, reviewing, and testing them.
The intent is for -staging to house self-contained
patches—Kroah-Hartman mentions drivers and filesystems—that
should not affect anyone who is not using them. Because of that, he is
hoping that -staging can get included in the linux-next tree. As he says to
Stephen Rothwell, maintainer of -next, in
Yes, I know it contains things that will not be included in the
next release, but the inclusion and basic build testing that is
provided by your tree is invaluable. You can place it at the
end, and if there is even a whiff of a problem in any of the
patches, you have my full permission to drop them on the floor
and run away screaming (and let me know please, so I can fix it
The -next tree is meant for things that are headed for inclusion in the
"N+1" kernel (where 2.6.N is the release under development), so including
code not meant for that release is bending the rules a bit. As of this
writing, Rothwell has not responded to the
request to include -staging, but it would clearly benefit those patches to
have a wider audience—with only a small impact on -next. There is no
set timeline for patches to move from -staging into mainline, Kroah-Hartman
Based on some of the work that is needed on some of these drivers, it is
much longer than N+2, unless we have some people step up to help out
with the work. It's almost all janitorial work to do, but I know I
personally don't have enough time to do it all, and can use the help.
The -staging tree is seen as a great place for Kernel Janitors and others
who are interested in learning about kernel development to get their
start. The announcement notes: "The code in this tree
is in desperate need of cleanups and fixes that can be trivially
found using 'sparse' and 'scripts/checkpatch.pl'." In the
process of cleaning up the code, folks can learn how to create patches and
how to get them accepted into a tree. From there, the hope is that more
difficult tasks will be undertaken—with -staging or other kernel
code—leading to a new crop of kernel hackers.
The current status of -staging shows 17
patches, most of which are drivers from the Linux Driver Project.
Kroah-Hartman is actively encouraging more code to be submitted for
-staging, as long as it meets some criteria for the tree. The tree is
not meant to be a dumping ground for drivers that are being "thrown
over the wall" in hopes that someone else will deal with them. It is also
not meant for code that is being actively worked on by a group of
developers in another tree somewhere—the reiser4 filesystem is
mentioned as an
example—it is for code that would otherwise languish.
The reaction on linux-kernel has so far been favorable, with questions
about what kinds of patches are appropriate for the tree, in particular new architectures. The -staging tree fills a
niche that has not yet been covered by other trees. It also serves
multiple purposes, from giving new developers a starting point to providing
additional reviewing and testing opportunities for new drivers and other
code. With luck, that will hasten the arrival of new features—along
with new developers.
Comments (3 posted)
The 2.6.26 development cycle has stabilized to the point that it's possible
to look at the internal API changes which have resulted. They include:
- At long last, support for the KGDB interactive debugger has been
added to the x86 architecture. There is a DocBook document in the
Documentation directory which provides an overview on how to use this
new facility. Some useful features (e.g. KGDB over Ethernet) are not
yet supported, but this is a good start.
- Page attribute table (PAT) support is also (again, at long last)
available for the x86 architecture. PATs allow for fine-grained
control of memory caching behavior with more flexibility than the
older MTRR feature. See Documentation/x86/pat.txt for more
- ioremap() on the x86 architecture will now always return an
uncached mapping. Previously, it had taken a more relaxed approach,
leaving the caching as the BIOS had set it up. The practical result
was to almost always create uncached mappings, but with
occasional exceptions. Drivers which depend on a cached mapping will
now break; they will need to use ioremap_cache() instead.
See this article for
more information on this change and caching in general.
- The generic semaphores
patch has been merged. The semaphore code also has new
down_killable() and down_timeout() functions.
- The final users of struct class_device have been converted to
use struct device instead. The class_device
structure, along with its associated infrastructure, has been
- The nopage() virtual memory area operation has been removed;
all in-tree code is now using fault() instead.
- The object debugging
infrastructure has been merged.
- Two new functions (inode_getsecid() and
ipc_getsecid()), added to support security modules and the
audit code, provide general access to security IDs associated with
inodes and IPC objects. A number of superblock-related LSM callbacks
now take a struct path pointer instead of struct
nameidata. There is also a new set of hooks providing
generic audit support in the security module framework.
- The now-unused ieee80211 software MAC layer has been removed; all of
the drivers which needed it have been converted to mac80211. Also
removed are the sk98lin network driver (in favor of skge) and bcm43xx
(replaced by b43 and b43legacy).
- The ata_port_operations structure used by libata drivers now
supports a simple sort of operation inheritance, making it easier to
write drivers which are "almost like" existing code, but with small
- A new function (ns_to_ktime()) converts a time value in
nanoseconds to ktime_t.
- Greg Kroah-Hartman is no longer the PCI subsystem maintainer, having
passed that responsibility on to Jesse Barnes.
- The seq_file code now accepts a return value of SEQ_SKIP from
the show() callback; that value causes any accumulated output
from that call to be discarded.
- The Video4Linux2 API now defines a set of controls for camera devices;
they allow user space to work with parameters like exposure type, tilt
and pan, focus, and more.
- On the x86 architecture, there is a new configuration parameter which
allows gcc to make its own decisions about the inlining of functions,
even when functions are declared inline. In some cases, this
option can reduce the size of the kernel's text segment by over 2%.
- The legacy IDE layer has gone through a lot of internal changes which
will break any remaining out-of-tree IDE drivers.
- A condition which triggers a warning from WARN_ON will now
also taint the kernel.
- The get_info() interface for /proc files has been
removed. There is also a new function for creating /proc
struct proc_dir_entry *proc_create_data(const char *name, mode_t mode,
struct proc_dir_entry *parent,
const struct file_operations *proc_fops,
This version adds the data pointer, ensuring that it will be
set in the resulting proc_dir_entry structure before user
space can try to access it.
- The klist type now has the usual-form macros for declaration and
initialization: DEFINE_KLIST() and KLIST_INIT().
Two new functions (klist_add_after() and
klist_add_before()) can be used to add entries to a klist in
a specific position.
- kmap_atomic_to_page() is no longer exported to modules.
- There are some new generic functions for performing 64-bit integer
division in the kernel:
u64 div_u64(u64 dividend, u32 divisor);
u64 div_u64_rem(u64 dividend, u32 divisor, u32 *remainder);
s64 div_s64(s64 dividend, s32 divisor)
s64 div_s64_rem(s64 dividend, s32 divisor, s32 *remainder);
Unlike do_div(), these functions are explicit about whether
signed or unsigned math is being done. The x86-specific
div_long_long_rem() has been removed in favor of these new
- There is a new string function:
bool sysfs_streq(const char *s1, const char *s2);
It compares the two strings while ignoring an optional trailing
- The prototype for i2c probe() methods has changed:
int (*probe)(struct i2c_client *client,
const struct i2c_device_id *id);
The new id argument supports i2c device name aliasing.
One change which did not happen in the end was the change to 4K
kernel stacks by default on the x86 architecture. This is still a desired
long-term goal, but it is hard to say when the developers might have enough
confidence to make this change.
Comments (4 posted)
Andrew Morton is well-known in the kernel community for doing a wide
variety of different tasks: maintaining the -mm tree for patches that may be
on their way to the mainline, reviewing lots of patches, giving
presentations about working with the community, and, in general, handling
lots of important and visible kernel development chores. Things are
changing in the way he does things, though, so we asked him a few questions
by email. He responded at length about the -mm tree and how that is
changing with the advent of linux-next, kernel quality, and what folks can
do to help make the kernel better.
Years ago, there was a great deal of worry about the possibility of burning
out Linus. Life seems to have gotten easier for him since then; now
instead, I've heard concerns about burning out Andrew. It seems that you
do a lot; how do you keep the pace and how long can we expect you to stay
I do less than I used to. Mainly because I have
to - you can't do
the same thing at a high level of intensity for over five years and
I'm still keeping up with the reviewing and merging but the -mm release
periods are now far too long.
There are of course many things which I should do but which I do not.
Over the years my role has fortunately decreased - more maintainers are
running their own trees and the introduction of the linux-next tree
(operated by Stephen Rothwell) has helped a lot.
The linux-next tree means that 85% of the code which I used to
redistribute for external testing is now being redistributed by
Stephen. Some time in the next month or two I will dive into my
scripts and will find a way to get the sufficiently-stable parts of the
-mm tree into linux-next and then I will hopefully be able to stop
doing -mm releases altogether.
So. The work level is ramping down, and others are taking things on.
What can we do to help?
I think code review would be the main thing. It's a pretty specialised
function to review new code well. The people who specialise in the
area which the new code is changing are the best reviewers but
unfortunately I will regularly find myself having to review someone
Secondly: it would help if people's patches were less buggy. I still
have to fix a stupidly large number of compile warnings and compilation
errors and each -mm release requires me to perform probably three or
four separate bisection searches to weed out bad patches.
Thirdly: testing, testing, testing.
Fourthly: it's stupid how often I end up being the primary responder on
bug reports. I'll typically read the linux-kernel list in 1000-email
batches once every few days and each time I will come across multiple
bug reports which are one to three days old and which nobody has done
anything about! And sometimes I know that the person who is
responsible for that part of the kernel has read the report. grr.
Is it your opinion that the quality of the kernel is in decline? Most
developers seem to be pretty sanguine about the overall quality problem.
Assuming there's a difference of opinion here, where do you think it comes
from? How can we resolve it?
I used to think it was in decline, and I think that I might think that
it still is. I see so many regressions which we never fix. Obviously
we fix bugs as well as add them, but it is very hard to determine what
the overall result of this is.
When I'm out and about I will very often hear from people whose
machines we broke in ways which I'd never heard about before. I ask
them to send a bug report (expecting that nothing will end up being
done about it) but they rarely do.
So I don't know where we are and I don't know what to do. All I can do
is to encourage testers to report bugs and to be persistent with them,
and I continue to stick my thumb in developers' ribs to get something
done about them.
I do think that it would be nice to have a bugfix-only kernel release.
One which is loudly publicised and during which we encourage everyone
to send us their bug reports and we'll spend a couple of months doing
nothing else but try to fix them. I haven't pushed this much at all,
but it would be interesting to try it once. If it is beneficial, we
can do it again some other time.
There have been a number of kernel security problems disclosed recently.
Is any particular effort being put into the prevention and repair of
security holes? What do you think we should be doing in this area?
People continue to develop new static code checkers and new runtime
infrastructure which can find security holes.
But a security hole is just a bug - it is just a particular type of
bug, so one way in which we can reduce the incidence rate is to write
less bugs. See above. More careful coding, more careful review, etc.
Now, is there any special pattern to a security-affecting bug? One
which would allow us to focus more resources on preventing that type of
bug than we do upon preventing "average" bugs? Well, perhaps. If
someone were to sit down and go through the past five years' worth of
kernel security bugs and pull together an overall picture of what our
commonly-made security-affecting bugs are, then that information could
perhaps be used to guide code-reviewers' efforts and code-checking
That being said, I have the impression that most of our "security
holes" are bugs in ancient crufty old code, mainly drivers, which
nobody runs and which nobody even loads. So most metrics and
measurements on kernel security holes are, I believe, misleading and
Those security-affecting bugs in the core kernel which affect all
kernel users are rare, simply because so much attention and work gets
devoted to the core kernel. This is why the recent splice bug was such
a surprise and head-slapper.
I have sensed that there is a bit of confusion about the difference between
-mm and linux-next. How would you describe the purpose of these two trees?
Which one should interested people be testing?
Well, things are in flux at present.
The -mm tree used to consist of the following:
- 80-odd subsystem maintainer trees (git and quilt), eg: scsi, usb,
- various patches which I picked up which should be in a subsystem
maintainer's tree, but which for one of various reasons didn't get
merged there. I spend a lot of time acting as backup for leaky
- patches which are mastered in the -mm tree. These are now
organised as subsystems too, and I count about 100 such subsystems
which are mastered in -mm. eg: fbdev, signals, uml, procfs. And
- more speculative things which aren't intended for mainline in the
short-term, such as new filesystems (eg reiser4).
- debugging patches which I never intend to go upstream.
The 80-odd subsystem trees in fact account for 85% of the changes which
go into Linux. Pretty much all of the remaining 15% are the only-in-mm
Right now (at 2.6.26-rc4 in "kernel time"), the 80-odd subsystem trees
are in linux-next. I now merge linux-next into -mm rather than the
80-odd separate trees.
As mentioned previously, I plan to move more of -mm into linux-next -
the 100-odd little subsystem trees.
Once that has happened, there isn't really much left in -mm. Just
- the patches which subsystem maintainers leaked. I send these to
the subsystem maintainers.
- the speculative not-for-next-release features
- the not-to-be-merged debugging patches.
Do you have any specific goals for the development of the kernel over the
next year or so? What would they be?
Steady as she goes, basically.
I keep on hoping that kernel development in general will start to
ramp down. There cannot be an infinite number of new features
out there! Eventually we should get into more of a maintenance
mode where we just fix bugs, tweak performance and add new
drivers. Famous last words.
And it's just vaguely possible that we're starting to see that
happening now. I do get a sense that there are less "big" changes
coming in. When I sent my usual 1000-patch stream at Linus for 2.6.26
I actually received an email from him asking (paraphrased) "hey,
where's all the scary stuff?"
In the early-May discussions, Linus said a couple of times that he does not
think code review helps much. Do you agree with that point of view?
would you describe the real role of code review in the kernel development
Well, it finds bugs. It improves the quality of the code.
Sometimes it prevents really really bad things from getting into
the product. Such as rootholes in the core kernel. I've spotted
a decent number of these at review time.
It also increases the number of people who have an understanding
of the new code - both the reviewer(s) and those who closely
followed the review are now better able to support that code.
Also, I expect that the prospect of receiving a close review will
keep the originators on their toes - make them take more care
over their work.
There clearly must be quite a bit of communication between you and Linus,
but much of it, it seems, is out of the public view. Could you describe
how the two of you work together? How are decisions (such as when to
Actually we hardly ever say anything much. We'll meet
face-to-face once or twice a year and "hi how's it going".
We each know how the other works and I hope we find each other
predictable and that we have no particular issues with the
other's actions. There just doesn't seem to be much to say,
Is there anything else you would like to say to LWN's readers?
Sure. Please do contribute to Linux, and a great way of doing that is
to test latest mainline or linux-next or -mm and to report on any
problems which you encounter.
Nothing special is needed - just install it on as many machines
as you dare and use them in your normal day-to-day activities.
If you do hit a bug (and you will) then please be persistent in
getting us to fix it. Don't let us release a kernel with your
bug in it! Shout at us if that's what it takes. Just don't let
us break your machines.
Our testers are our greatest resource - the whole kernel project
would grind to a complete halt without them. I profusely thank
them at every opportunity I get :)
We would like to thank Andrew for taking time to answer our questions.
Comments (40 posted)
Patches and updates
Core kernel code
Filesystems and block I/O
Virtualization and containers
Page editor: Jake Edge
Next page: Distributions>>