Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree

From	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree
Date	2016-04-12 08:40 +0200
Message-ID	<rn09s-2Jw-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <rmQjM-3dx-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rmQMO-3pO-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <rmRpv-3Vw-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rmSOC-4W8-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rmZZL-2Fs-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I think we may have more of an issue educating our users than an issue
> with the code we distribute.

I think that's the issue here, combined with users that just don't want
to upgrade as it's "hard" for them.  There's nothing we can do about
making it easier than we already do, and really, taking 200 patches is
just the same work for them to take 100 patches in a release, so I
don't buy the "I only want a small subset of fixes" argument, as it
doesn't make any sense.

So I worry that this tree will give people a _false_ sense of security,
thinking that they have properly covered the needed fixes when really,
there are lots of fixes they didn't even know they needed that got
applied to the "normal" stable tree for issues they will hit.

Also, people need to stop being afraid of the large numbers of stable
patches, and compare it to the overall % of changes, and realize that
what we take in stable releases is really a trivially small number of
the overall changes made to the kernel.  So much so that you might argue
that it's safer to run the real kernel releases and not rely on stable
releases :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Thread

[ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-11 20:00 +0200
  Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Jeff Merkey <linux.mdb@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 20:20 +0200
    Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0200
  Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Jeff Merkey <linux.mdb@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 20:40 +0200
    Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0200
      Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Jeff Merkey <linux.mdb@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0200
    Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0200
  Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-04-11 20:50 +0200
    Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-11 21:00 +0200
      Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-04-11 22:10 +0200
        Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-11 22:40 +0200
          Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-04-11 23:20 +0200
            Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> - 2016-04-12 00:50 +0200
              Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-04-12 08:30 +0200
                Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-04-12 08:40 +0200
                Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-04-12 10:20 +0200
                Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Eddie Chapman <eddie@ehuk.net> - 2016-04-12 14:40 +0200
                Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-04-12 15:00 +0200
                Re: [ANNOUNCE] linux-stable security tree Eddie Chapman <eddie@ehuk.net> - 2016-04-12 15:50 +0200

csiph-web