xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?

To: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Safe to use XFS in production in Linux 3.2.9?
From: Sean Thomas Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:55:40 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAGpXXZLQp+m_soTBw8Zq-M0cyKqVTASSAXMt6YV07ntfqJhMag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120308140600.77406b8zzy2zggkc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAGpXXZLQp+m_soTBw8Zq-M0cyKqVTASSAXMt6YV07ntfqJhMag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.5)
Hi Greg,

Yeah, thanks; we've been pointed in the direction of using 3.0-train instead, and I'm moving ahead with building 3.0.23. I just didn't see any clear guidance on kernel.org so I thought I'd ask about the best way to move forward.

Best,

-Sean

Quoting Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Sean Thomas Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

We're currently using Linux 3.0.12 with Cristoph's xfs-bulletproof-sync
patch and it seems to be working very well for us. Unfortunately this
kernel is vulnerable to the recent CVE-2012-0056 no permission checking on
writes to /proc/(pid)/mem local root exploit, so we've got to leave it
behind.

I see that the newest recommended stable kernel on kernel.org is 3.2.9.



Sean,

You do appreciate 3.0 has been designated a long-term kernel by the
kernel.org team and will get kernel.org support for 2 years.  3.2 is not a
long-term kernel, so support drops from kernel.org more or less when 3.3
comes out.

3.2 support will come from the distributors of course, but I don't know if
any of the major releases are based on 3.2.

Greg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>