1 |
Dnia 3 sierpnia 2017 13:18:57 CEST, Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> napisał(a): |
2 |
>Hello, |
3 |
> |
4 |
>On 08/03/2017 03:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>> On pon, 2017-07-31 at 18:13 -0400, Mike Pagano wrote: |
6 |
>>> On 07/31/2017 10:15 AM, William Hubbs wrote:> All, |
7 |
>>>> |
8 |
>>>> The next Gentoo Council meeting is on Sunday, aug 13 at 18:00 UTC |
9 |
>in the |
10 |
>>>> #gentoo-council channel on freenode. |
11 |
>>>> |
12 |
>>>> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to |
13 |
>discuss |
14 |
>>>> or vote on. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> <snip> |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> I would like to submit the following for the council to discuss and |
19 |
>vote |
20 |
>>> upon. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> At the moment, we have a capacity problem around kernel |
23 |
>stabilization. |
24 |
>>> Upstream kernels are released at an extremely high rate and the |
25 |
>Gentoo |
26 |
>>> Kernel Maintainers do their best to release them shortly thereafter. |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>>> Sometimes, arch teams are not able to respond to stablereqs in a |
29 |
>timely |
30 |
>>> manner. This is not a complaint on their efforts, just a description |
31 |
>of |
32 |
>>> what happens often for arch teams that are stressed to capacity. |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> When the motivation for a STABLEREQ is a high severity security bug |
35 |
>>> (e.g. root exploit), this delay in stabilization results in us |
36 |
>having to |
37 |
>>> keep exploitable kernels in the tree in order not to drop the latest |
38 |
>>> stable for a specific architecture. |
39 |
>>> |
40 |
>>> The procedure outlined below allows for auto-stabilization of minor |
41 |
>>> bumps by the Gentoo kernel team for any previously stabled major |
42 |
>version |
43 |
>>> kernel.[1] |
44 |
>>> |
45 |
>>> I welcome discussion, better ideas or anything else that makes |
46 |
>>> everyone's lives easier and user's systems more secure. |
47 |
>>> |
48 |
>> |
49 |
>> I'm not sure if this is really something for the Council to discuss. |
50 |
>> Sounds like a regular problem that's best dealt either with arch |
51 |
>teams |
52 |
>> directly or on gentoo-dev. |
53 |
> |
54 |
>This is really something I would like the Council to discuss and vote |
55 |
>upon. I've tried to do this through arch teams and the result is root |
56 |
>exploitable kernels sitting in the tree (which is the state right now |
57 |
>as |
58 |
>I write this). Certain architectures will not perform stabilization no |
59 |
>matter how much I ask. Or how many bugs I submit. Or how many times I |
60 |
>pop into IRC and ask. And I only do this when I am forced to keep root |
61 |
>exploits in the tree. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |
64 |
>> <private hat> |
65 |
>> |
66 |
>> I don't mind stabilizing new minor releases automatically but I'd |
67 |
>prefer |
68 |
>> if they were at least build-tested with the default config once. |
69 |
>> However, I doubt anybody's going to shoot you if you take |
70 |
>> the responsibility for your actions and don't break anything |
71 |
>important |
72 |
>> in the process. |
73 |
>> |
74 |
>> </private hat> |
75 |
>> |
76 |
> |
77 |
>You're preference would result in the status quo. Exploitable kernels |
78 |
>sitting in the tree. I don't have the hardware to build and boot test |
79 |
>on every architecture. |
80 |
|
81 |
Well, I meant making the hardware available to you here. This is sth infra and/or arch testers should be able to do. |
82 |
|
83 |
> |
84 |
>By only auto stabilizing minor version bumps for which a major bump was |
85 |
>previously arch tested and stabled, we reduce the risk of breakage. |
86 |
|
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
Best regards, |
90 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |