21–30 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anyway you can use a different kernel? The kernel is really easily replaceable in other distros. I don't know much about RHEL.
No, you can't do that in RHEL. It would invalidate support.
I really hate the fact that RHEL updates kernels so slowly. This becomes very painful when your product cannot take advantage of some advanced kernel features just because you have customers running RHEL :(.
(disclaimer: I work for the Compute team in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, and work with the OL team regularly on a number of things. It has been one of the more interesting aspects of the job)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They feel like they know better and do not want all of the fixes that the LTS kernels provide for some crazy reason. I suggest you contact them if you rely on a RHEL kernel to ask them why they do this, it's always seemed crazy. Note, I'm the person who does the LTS kernel releases, maybe they just don't like me :)
It could also be motivated by the fact that it's not entirely wise to base an entire multibillion dollar business around whatever text a non-employee happens to push to a repo you don't control.
As the number of systems running RHEL is really just a rounding error compared to the number of Android systems out there, maybe it doesn't really matter :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that Red Hat, SUSE, and Canonical all don't use them. They maintain their own kernel trees with their modifications. These kernel teams have different priorities: * stable ABI within a timespan (RH, SUSE) * feature backports based on customer demand (all three) * out of tree goop (Canonical) I've also heard from others (though notably, not folks specifically at these companies) that longterm kernels are iffier t…
Seems like even Arch maintains it's own kernel. Not uncommon for distros to do it at all.
What do you mean by 'maintain' here? Because Arch is trying to stay on the bleeding edge side of things in a reasonable manner and is rolling release, they almost stay 1:1 with upstream, "maintains its own kernel" makes it sound like they would do some heavy patching and do active maintenance with certain kernel versions, et cetera. You can have a look yourself if you want to https://git.archlinux.org/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.7.5-arch1&i...
Can someone in the kernel dev space give a longer explanation for this? This looks to me like Red Hat assigning a CVE to something patched a long time ago. Is this just record keeping to label security issues with CVEs or has Red Hat left this unpatched for 17 months? (Or something else?)
Your headline's misleading. Red Hat knows it's long been fixed in the LTS kernels, but it still needs patching in the RHEL kernels. Generally speaking, current LTS kernels are not used in older Linux distros.
Debian always uses longterm branches. Sometimes Ubuntu, too.
Why don't Red Hat et al use the LTS kernels?
They feel like they know better and do not want all of the fixes that the LTS kernels provide for some crazy reason. I suggest you contact them if you rely on a RHEL kernel to ask them why they do this, it's always seemed crazy. Note, I'm the person who does the LTS kernel releases, maybe they just don't like me :)
It's even crazier; they sometimes backport changes to their kernel that the LTS kernels don't get. We use a custom kernel module that contains a bunch of #if #endif blocks that check the kernel version for stuff that changed. Doesn't work on RedHat since you actually need the branch that's for more recent kernels in some places.
I really hate the fact that RHEL updates kernels so slowly. This becomes very painful when your product cannot take advantage of some advanced kernel features just because you have customers running RHEL :(.
Your headline's misleading. Red Hat knows it's long been fixed in the LTS kernels, but it still needs patching in the RHEL kernels. Generally speaking, current LTS kernels are not used in older Linux distros.
Moderators can of course change the title, I don't think it's misleading and I was not trying to be. I guess 'reports' could be changed into 'finds' and it could be mentioned that it was found 'in its Linux kernel', not sure when the character limit would hit. 'current LTS kernels are not used in older Linux distros' - not sure what your point is with this. They absolutely could have used / can use LTS kernels if the…
Why don't Red Hat et al use the LTS kernels?
Note that Red Hat, SUSE, and Canonical all don't use them. They maintain their own kernel trees with their modifications. These kernel teams have different priorities: * stable ABI within a timespan (RH, SUSE) * feature backports based on customer demand (all three) * out of tree goop (Canonical) I've also heard from others (though notably, not folks specifically at these companies) that longterm kernels are iffier t…