Kernel release status [LWN.net]

The current development kernel is 2.5.66, which came out on March 24. This large patch contains a great many small fixes. It also has some more IDE changes, some ext3 performance improvements, the 32-bit dev_t preparatory patches (see last week's Kernel Page and below), more devfs chopping, the new sys_epoll() API (covered briefly here two weeks ago), a big framebuffer update, an ALSA update, and an XFS update. See Linus's announcement or the long-format changelog for the details.

Linus's BitKeeper repository contains an XFS update, a USB update, and a number of architecture updates (ARM, SPARC64, x86-64, PPC64).

The current prepatch from Alan Cox is 2.5.65-ac3, which adds another set of small fixes.

The current stable kernel is 2.4.20; Marcelo tried to catch us by releasing 2.4.21-pre6 late on Wednesday, but we're on to him. This release contains many fixes of course (including a large set from the -ac tree and the ptrace() fix) and some architecture updates. The first 2.4.21 release candidate is apparently coming soon.

There has been some significant disagreement over whether 2.4.21 should be rushed out with the fix for the ptrace() vulnerability. Numerous people, it is said, run kernels obtained from kernel.org, but do not follow the mailing list closely enough to pick up needed security patches. Rather than leave those people vulnerable, a new release (containing, perhaps, only the security fix) should be made available as soon as possible. On the other side, it is argued that distributors have made patched kernels available, and anybody who is concerned can patch their kernels themselves.

The apparent resolution is that there will not be an expedited 2.4.21 release with the fix. Certainly no such kernel has been released; Marcelo has been completely silent on the matter.

to post comments

The current development kernel is 2.4.20?

Posted Mar 27, 2003 4:43 UTC (Thu) by cpeterso (guest, #305) [Link] (1 responses)

Shouldn't that be "The current stable kernel is 2.4.20"?

The current development kernel is 2.4.20?

Posted Mar 27, 2003 12:30 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Sigh...I do that about once a month...

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 27, 2003 16:56 UTC (Thu) by ccezar (subscriber, #2749) [Link] (4 responses)

"On the other side, it is argued that distributors have made patched kernels available, and anybody who is concerned can patch their kernels themselves."

Well, it's sad to said but this is exactly the same argument Microsoft's has to use :-(

cezar

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 27, 2003 22:03 UTC (Thu) by smeg4brains (guest, #207) [Link] (2 responses)

I must say, that I've not been to impressed with Marcello's 2.4.x maintenance. I know he's trying to be conservative about releasing things so as to avoid releasing broken things, but if ever there was a time to shove something out the door, it's when you *KNOW* that your current "stable" kernel has serious errors in it.

The kernel that's there for download, should *ALWAYS* be the kernel that the developers have the most confidence in... the kernel that people should want to be running.

I really hope that he doesn't end up being the maintainer of the 2.6 series in the end.

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 31, 2003 2:59 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> I must say, that I've not been to impressed with
> Marcello's 2.4.x maintenance

Marcello is 19 or 20, he can only have had maximum 4 years of Linux hacking experience when he was handed the post of maintainer. He's done very well for someone of his experience.

I am a mild critic of the 2.4.x series but I blame Cox. I think it was very unfair of him to give Marcello this level of repsonsibility. Cox is still a great guy, possibly the greatest of the kernel hackers but this decision was a mistake that should have been predicted.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 31, 2003 7:44 UTC (Mon) by error27 (guest, #8346) [Link]

>> I must say, that I've not been to impressed with Marcello's 2.4.x maintenance.

And I must say the stable tree has improved a heck of a lot since Marcello took over from Linus.

Marcello is doing a pretty excelent job in my book.

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 27, 2003 22:58 UTC (Thu) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

Marcelo may be releasing too slowly (I think he is), but I don't see how this is the argument Microsoft uses. I mean, you can't exactly patch Microsoft's kernel... At least not in a sane manner. And there's only one "distributor" for Windows.

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 28, 2003 1:32 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (1 responses)

I somehow doubt that there's anyone who actually monitors kernel.org for information about when to get a new kernel. Considering that a number of news sources, as well as the kernel mailing list, have mentioned the problem and what to do about it, I'm not worried that people won't know that the kernel needs a patch. On the other hand, I think that a patched version of 2.4.20 would be a good thing to have on kernel.org, and certainly the patch for 2.4.20 should be available and easy to find on the official site.

I think rushing 2.4.21 out would be a mistake; it hasn't been sufficiently tested. But the ptrace patch has been sufficiently tested, and should be in a complete release ahead of the stuff that's in 2.4.21-pre.

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 28, 2003 3:20 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

In most patch management I have done... 2.4.21 would be 2.4.20 with only the patch for the security fix. All other patches in the tree would be applied again afterwords.

what is preventing them from releasing a bugfix version?

Posted Mar 31, 2003 3:55 UTC (Mon) by yem (guest, #1138) [Link]

2.4.20.1 anyone?
Surely they can produce a bugfix release. The major vendors wouldn't pick it up since they'll have the fix in their own version anyway. Kernel.org *is* a vendor of sorts, and the assertion that kernel.org not present a kernel *known to be faulty* as the "latest greatest" has some merit IMHO.

Kernel release status

Posted Mar 31, 2003 14:06 UTC (Mon) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]

Well some bugs should always be fixed without hesitating.
The errors inside the ext3 driver inside 2.4.20 should have been
immediatly fixed by Marcello. So Marcello should have released 2.4.21
the next day after people reported data loss on their ext3 filesystem. The
fact that he didn't correct it until today, gives me some doubt if he is the
_real_ maintainer of the 2.4.xx series.

Robert