Dear All,
I am in the phase of development of a Linux BSP for 2.6.11 kernel.
Which version of 2.6.11 kernel can be called best stable? In general where do i get this king of info?
I serched in the http://www.lwn.net but i failed to get the required info.
Regards,
Mukund Jampala
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 03:38:13PM +0530, Mukund JB. wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am in the phase of development of a Linux BSP for 2.6.11 kernel.
> Which version of 2.6.11 kernel can be called best stable? In general where do i get this king of info?
> I serched in the http://www.lwn.net but i failed to get the required info.
The latest, IOW 2.6.11.12 .
But note that the 2.6.11 branch is no longer maintained since kernel
2.6.12 was released 5 months ago, and therefore lacks e.g. current
security fixes.
> Regards,
> Mukund Jampala
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Dear Adrian,
Thanks for the information.
Also Can you please give inputs regarding.....
I have an existing Linux 2.6.11 BSP for an AMD GX processor.
What would it take me to port the complete BSP to 2.6.12 kernel?
Can I prefer to work on 2.6.11 kernel which makes me get the system up in no time without any changes made?
I guess 2.6.11 kernel will work with just a recompilation over 2.6.11.12 kernel.
An inquisitive question about Linux kernels versioning ...
How do 2.6.(x).1 and 2.6.(x).12 kernels vary?
Regards,
Mukund Jampala
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Bunk [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:22 PM
To: Mukund JB.
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which version of 2.6.11 is most stable
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 03:38:13PM +0530, Mukund JB. wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am in the phase of development of a Linux BSP for 2.6.11 kernel.
> Which version of 2.6.11 kernel can be called best stable? In general where do i get this king of info?
> I serched in the http://www.lwn.net but i failed to get the required info.
The latest, IOW 2.6.11.12 .
But note that the 2.6.11 branch is no longer maintained since kernel
2.6.12 was released 5 months ago, and therefore lacks e.g. current
security fixes.
> Regards,
> Mukund Jampala
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On 11/7/05, Mukund JB. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Adrian,
>
> Thanks for the information.
> Also Can you please give inputs regarding.....
>
> I have an existing Linux 2.6.11 BSP for an AMD GX processor.
> What would it take me to port the complete BSP to 2.6.12 kernel?
> Can I prefer to work on 2.6.11 kernel which makes me get the system up in no time without any changes made?
> I guess 2.6.11 kernel will work with just a recompilation over 2.6.11.12 kernel.
>
> An inquisitive question about Linux kernels versioning ...
> How do 2.6.(x).1 and 2.6.(x).12 kernels vary?
I think this link could be usefull for you:
http://www.technologynews.altervista.org/index.php?mod=read&id=1130758467
Sorry for the poor formatting, I'm looking for a better hosting for
the document.
--
Paolo
On Monday 07 November 2005 05:51, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 03:38:13PM +0530, Mukund JB. wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I am in the phase of development of a Linux BSP for 2.6.11 kernel.
> > Which version of 2.6.11 kernel can be called best stable? In general
> > where do i get this king of info? I serched in the http://www.lwn.net but i
> > failed to get the required info.
>
> The latest, IOW 2.6.11.12 .
>
> But note that the 2.6.11 branch is no longer maintained since kernel
> 2.6.12 was released 5 months ago, and therefore lacks e.g. current
> security fixes.
One question I've wondered about for a bit...
The diff between each dot release (ala 2.6.12.0->2.6.12.1) can theoretically
be backported to an older kernel. So in theory, at least some of the new
security fixes can be applied to older kernels. (Yeah, this necessarily
complete. Whether or not the patch makes any sense at all in the older
context, and whether or not that's everything they need to do... That's a
seperate issue. It allows some minimal, relatively straightforward
maintenance to be done on systems that are stuck with older kernels by
management fiat.
The gap is the jump to the next major release. Suppose that 2.6.15 makes it
up to 2.6.15.10, and then 2.6.16 comes out. Are there any security fixes in
2.6.16 that weren't in 2.6.15.10? Fixes which would have been in a 2.6.15.11
if the next big release had been delayed another two weeks?
>From a practical standpoint, somebody stuck on 2.6.15 for another six months
is likely to at least try to apply the next security update (the diff between
2.6.16->2.6.16.1) to their old kernel, but are they missing a week or two's
worth of security fixes?
I'm trying to clarify what my question is: When a new stable kernel comes
out, do the dot-release guys do one more release of security-only fixes to
patch all the known vulnerabilities that the new one addressed before moving
on? Or do they just leave a gap and say "upgrade"?
Rob
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:49:08PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> One question I've wondered about for a bit...
>
> The diff between each dot release (ala 2.6.12.0->2.6.12.1) can theoretically
> be backported to an older kernel. So in theory, at least some of the new
> security fixes can be applied to older kernels. (Yeah, this necessarily
> complete. Whether or not the patch makes any sense at all in the older
> context, and whether or not that's everything they need to do... That's a
> seperate issue. It allows some minimal, relatively straightforward
> maintenance to be done on systems that are stuck with older kernels by
> management fiat.
>
> The gap is the jump to the next major release. Suppose that 2.6.15 makes it
> up to 2.6.15.10, and then 2.6.16 comes out. Are there any security fixes in
> 2.6.16 that weren't in 2.6.15.10? Fixes which would have been in a 2.6.15.11
> if the next big release had been delayed another two weeks?
>
> From a practical standpoint, somebody stuck on 2.6.15 for another six months
> is likely to at least try to apply the next security update (the diff between
> 2.6.16->2.6.16.1) to their old kernel, but are they missing a week or two's
> worth of security fixes?
They miss a completely undefined amount of fixes.
Consider e.g. the case that 2.6.16 contains fixes that are later
identified as possible security issues.
The 2.6.16->2.6.16.1 patch fixes bugs in 2.6.16 - trying to apply it to
a 2.6.15 kernel might both leave security holes and add new breakages.
> I'm trying to clarify what my question is: When a new stable kernel comes
> out, do the dot-release guys do one more release of security-only fixes to
> patch all the known vulnerabilities that the new one addressed before moving
> on? Or do they just leave a gap and say "upgrade"?
There is no last dot-release - and it wouldn't help.
If you are running ftp.kernel.org kernels you have to upgrade to the
latest one or you will definitely miss security fixes.
If this is a problem for you stay with distribution kernels -
distributions offer exactly the service of security fixes for their
kernels for a well-defined amount of time.
> Rob
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed