Subject: Re: stable-security kernel updates
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <5717DD8A.4000707@oracle.com> <20160421125649.GA9926@1wt.eu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        lwn@lwn.net
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5718E0B4.4070208@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:16:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160421125649.GA9926@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1050
Lines: 29

On 04/21/2016 08:56 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Updates for stable-security kernels have been released:
>>
>> 	- v3.12.58-security
>> 	- v3.14.67-security
>> 	- v3.18.31-security
>> 	- v4.1.22-security
>> 	- v4.4.8-security
>> 	- v4.5.2-security
> 
> Sasha, regardless the rest of the discussion in this thread, I find
> myself confused by the naming above. For me, 3.12.58-something means
> "something" on top of 3.12.58. Many (most? all?) forks work like this,
> but here it seems that instead it's 3.12 + your selection of fixes
> from kernels up to 3.12.58. I guess it would be much less confusing to
> call it something like 3.12.0-security58 or something like this (or
> maybe simply 3.12.0.58). Some people might be tempted to upgrade from
> 3.12.40 to 3.12.58-security and will possibly discover some breakage
> due to bugs that were fixed between 3.12 and 3.12.40 and which are not
> fixed in 3.12.58-security.

That makes sense. I'll change that.


Thanks,
Sasha