| 1 |
2009/3/24 klondike <franxisco1988@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
> 2009/3/24 7v5w7go9ub0o <7v5w7go9ub0o@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> FWICT, hardened-sources has offered, for a few days now, a more recent |
| 5 |
>> kernel than gentoo-sources! (not that there's any sort of competition :-) |
| 6 |
>> ) |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Good show! (thanks!!) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm not going to cite anything because then I may get an out of context |
| 11 |
> answer :P But I think it was gengor who said that, obviously, the isn't any |
| 12 |
> kinf of competition, and that the kernel change was just casuality. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As a side note, say that the jump was 2.6.26 to 2.6.28 so I think gentoo |
| 15 |
> sources has been also advanced for some time :P |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The initial hardened-sources-2.6.28 release was committed precisely |
| 18 |
one month after the equivalent gentoo-sources release (plus an |
| 19 |
additional day with respect to the kernel.org release). This is a |
| 20 |
reasonable timeframe, particularly when you consider that the project |
| 21 |
must wait on upstream to produce a new grsecurity patch. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, there were releases for 2.6.27 but they were recently retired |
| 24 |
because - due to issues with the corresponding grsecurity patch - the |
| 25 |
decision was made that they would never be stabilised, in favour of |
| 26 |
2.6.28. That doesn't change the fact that they were there at the time. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As for the patchsets themselves, hardened-extras has a proven track record in: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
1) Incorporating 2.6.X.Y stable patches faster then genpatches-base |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
2) Incorporating important fixes that are typically later adopted by |
| 33 |
genpatches-base and/or stable patch and/or vanilla releases. Recent |
| 34 |
example: ext4 patches to mitigate against circumstances that commonly |
| 35 |
lead to data loss: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=262507 |
| 36 |
(queued upstream for 2.6.30 I believe) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
3) Incorporating/backporting security fixes and _continuing_ to do so |
| 39 |
for a given 2.6.X trunk for as long as is reasonably possible, even |
| 40 |
after genpatches/upstream have given up and moved on. For instance, |
| 41 |
consider the contents of hardened-patches-2.6.25-14. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
4) Occasionally, incorporating security fixes for a given trunk where |
| 44 |
neither genpatches nor upstream do so. For instance, consider my |
| 45 |
remarks concerning the 2.6.24 releases here: |
| 46 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185022#c3 |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
All of this has been especially true since Gordon began maintaining |
| 49 |
hardened-sources. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
In terms of keywording strategy, it's a case of when it it's ready, |
| 52 |
it's ready. On the other hand, if having a newer driver is more |
| 53 |
important than the maintainer's view of the overall |
| 54 |
production-worthiness of the release, then current releases are |
| 55 |
typically available to those who would add a single entry into |
| 56 |
package.keywords. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Taking all of this into due consideration, I would assert that |
| 59 |
hardened-sources does generally come out ahead of the 'competition', |
| 60 |
so to speak. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Cheers, |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
--Kerin |
Archives