| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel updates
The 2.6.27.51, 2.6.32.19, 2.6.34.4, and 2.6.35.2 stable kernel updates are out. Greg
says: "I'm tired of people trying to parse my words like I'm the Federal
Reserve Chairman, just go update already." Our analysts believe
this means that the bond market is looking nervous, interest rates will
hold steady, and there are probably some important fixes available. Greg
also says that there's only one more 2.6.34 update planned, so it's
probably time to think about moving to 2.6.35.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 13, 2010 22:52 UTC (Fri) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
I laughed out loud! Thanks! Fortunately I didn't spew any coffee over my shiny new kernels as I installed them...
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 13, 2010 23:40 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Now it just needs a poster — http://picpaste.de/bonds.png
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 8:28 UTC (Sat) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link]
Nice one :-)
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 13, 2010 23:14 UTC (Fri) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
> All users of the 2.6.35 kernel series must upgrade.
He probably is referring to c5e1a7d54dda4427f8d697b8a49ccadf6496b67f (which is a backport of 966cca029f739716fbcc8068b8c6dfe381f86fc3), which is a good reason to update as soon as possible.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:52 UTC (Sat) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link]
why? the problem fixed in that commit was seemingly present since 2.6.31
<http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-...>
nevertheless - if one is using suspend, then this is a very good reason to update (data corruption).
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 19:33 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's a good reason to update if one is using suspend *and* swapping in normal operation.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 16, 2010 0:56 UTC (Mon) by eteo (guest, #36711) [Link]
Actually, he's referring to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/CVE-2010-2240.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 13, 2010 23:24 UTC (Fri) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
There's also http://grsecurity.net/~spender/64bit_dos.c
see: 52423b90e1f5b1bdbbcc6e32f4d37ada29b790c4
CVE to vulnerability ratio is currently 0.
How can anyone seriously trust the vendor kernels when upstream won't be honest about the changes they're committing? If you're not using the latest kernel.org kernel, you're only getting a fraction of the vulnerability fixes that should be backported.
-Brad
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:47 UTC (Sat) by mikachu (guest, #5333) [Link]
And why was it reported to ted privately instead of lkml and/or security@kernel.org? (According to the .c file comments). Why don't the comments link to the commit in grsec that fixes it, or indeed any pointer at all that would be helpful instead of just trolling?
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 18:39 UTC (Sat) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]
You wanted a helpful commit message? You must be one of those fringe security leaches [sic] that just can't understand that a bug is a bug and that the fix is the disclosure! Look through our 1.5MB patch -- it's all you need.
If it's not good enough you can pay for Enterprise Linux (tm) support where we'll pay someone to assume my responsibility.
The community reached consensus over a year ago that this is perfectly acceptable, why do you have a problem with it?
-Brad
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 19:44 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Because you were the one making a huge song and dance about it being unacceptable to act that way, so if anyone could be expected to act differently, it would be you?
(Of course, maybe it's simply unacceptable except *if* it's you. I don't believe you changed your mind, because you still make such a bloody noise in the LWN comments to virtually every stable kernel release, in an apparent effort to eliminate all collegiality whatsoever from the commenting here and make it all viciously adversarial. Thanks heaps.)
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 19, 2010 21:28 UTC (Thu) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
"If you're not using the latest kernel.org kernel, you're only getting a fraction of the vulnerability fixes that should be backported."
It would be nice to have this statement either validated, or refuted. Which vendors are vulnerable because they have not backported a vulnerability fix, because it isn't disclosed as such in the commit log? It must be many if only "a fraction" of such commits are backported.
-RC! Posted Aug 13, 2010 23:30 UTC (Fri) by ejmarkow (guest, #56170) [Link]
Nahh, I'll skip the stable kernel. I want the -RC baby...bleeding edge!
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 0:53 UTC (Sat) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
kernel 2.6.35's stable releases seem to be handled better than the previous ones. New stable versions of this kernel have been released earlier than normal, without waiting for weeks and having in the end a huge pile of patches.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 19:46 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, they started getting released as soon as I was stuck on holiday hundreds of miles away at the wrong end of a narrowband link. I hope they're not too critical because there's no way I'm risking an upgrade until I get back. Just my sodding luck.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 14, 2010 20:18 UTC (Sat) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
It seems this was a "bad one" for some people. Either cherry-pick 11ac552477e32835cb6970bf0a70c210807f5673 or wait for the next one; see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16588 for the details.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 15, 2010 9:11 UTC (Sun) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]
Thanks for the hint.
Stable kernel updates Posted Aug 16, 2010 3:49 UTC (Mon) by MTecknology (subscriber, #57596) [Link]
-RC...
I have to agree with the above. With 2.6.36-rc1 finally being out.. woohoo. I'm more excited about this one that most any others.
|
|||||||||||||
