[arch-dev-public] Fwd: Non-core kernel
Greetings, friends, I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong. If it is agreeable, I would like to bring the ZEN kernel[1] into either [extra] or [community]. I co-maintain this kernel fork and currently release packages into my personal repository[2]. I use this kernel on all three of my Linux machines: A Schenker S413 (Clevo W740SU) ultrabook, a Zotac EI750 workstation and an ASUS Eee Box B202 internet gateway. None use out-of-tree modules. ZEN follows the same stable versions as core/linux but merges in a few additional features and drivers. It also carries a handful of fixes and performance tweaks. The BBS topic[2] lists the major differences. The configuration of my builds is mostly identical to core/linux. There are no packages of out-of-tree modules for this kernel and I would not add any to our repositories. Talking to Allan revealed that we once had a number of patch sets. However, apparently this lead to problems with sorting out kernel-specific bugs. My response would be getting people to reproduce with core/linux (which should be easier thanks to the mostly-identical config) and sending them to ZEN's issue tracker if they have ZEN-specific bugs. Qapla' batlh je! qatlho', Jan [1]: https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:37:42 +0200 Jan Alexander Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings, friends,
I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
If it is agreeable, I would like to bring the ZEN kernel[1] into either [extra] or [community]. I co-maintain this kernel fork and currently release packages into my personal repository[2].
I use this kernel on all three of my Linux machines: A Schenker S413 (Clevo W740SU) ultrabook, a Zotac EI750 workstation and an ASUS Eee Box B202 internet gateway. None use out-of-tree modules.
ZEN follows the same stable versions as core/linux but merges in a few additional features and drivers. It also carries a handful of fixes and performance tweaks. The BBS topic[2] lists the major differences. The configuration of my builds is mostly identical to core/linux. There are no packages of out-of-tree modules for this kernel and I would not add any to our repositories.
Talking to Allan revealed that we once had a number of patch sets. However, apparently this lead to problems with sorting out kernel-specific bugs. My response would be getting people to reproduce with core/linux (which should be easier thanks to the mostly-identical config) and sending them to ZEN's issue tracker if they have ZEN-specific bugs.
Qapla' batlh je! qatlho', Jan
[1]: https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157
+1, we already have -grsec (and -lts) so it's not a precedence. BP
On 19/07, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
Greetings, friends,
I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
If it is agreeable, I would like to bring the ZEN kernel[1] into either [extra] or [community]. I co-maintain this kernel fork and currently release packages into my personal repository[2].
I use this kernel on all three of my Linux machines: A Schenker S413 (Clevo W740SU) ultrabook, a Zotac EI750 workstation and an ASUS Eee Box B202 internet gateway. None use out-of-tree modules.
ZEN follows the same stable versions as core/linux but merges in a few additional features and drivers. It also carries a handful of fixes and performance tweaks. The BBS topic[2] lists the major differences. The configuration of my builds is mostly identical to core/linux. There are no packages of out-of-tree modules for this kernel and I would not add any to our repositories.
Talking to Allan revealed that we once had a number of patch sets. However, apparently this lead to problems with sorting out kernel-specific bugs. My response would be getting people to reproduce with core/linux (which should be easier thanks to the mostly-identical config) and sending them to ZEN's issue tracker if they have ZEN-specific bugs.
Qapla' batlh je! qatlho', Jan
[1]: https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel [2]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157
Not arguing against this at all, but was wondering if there have been attempts to get the zen things merged upstream? (Also, "Qapla'" always makes me think of kapla[1] building blocks, hehe...) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapla -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Johannes Löthberg <johannes@kyriasis.com> wrote:
Not arguing against this at all, but was wondering if there have been attempts to get the zen things merged upstream?
All the big features come from other upstreams. For example, BFQ is not merged because the kernel maintainers want it as a patch to CFQ, not a separate scheduler. AUFS is not merged because it's a huge spaghetti mess (and we now have overlayfs). What remains are tweaks for PC usage that conflict with Linux' generalism. Gotta run good on that big iron.
[2015-07-19 16:37:42 +0200] Jan Alexander Steffens:
I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
From what I remember, essentially, quite a few people were against officially supporting another kernel, particularly since the feature gain was not clear and it seemed like the grsec world would at some
For reference, it was discussed there: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2014-April/026170.html point also need to interfere with userland packages, but Daniel Micay kept replying he would take care of everything himself and that there would be no interference.
If it is agreeable, I would like to bring the ZEN kernel[1] into either [extra] or [community].
You make it sound like that package would differ very little from our current linux package and require little additional maintenance; it really seems fine to me to bring it to [community]. Cheers. -- Gaetan
On 20/07/15 12:03 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2015-07-19 16:37:42 +0200] Jan Alexander Steffens:
I recently noticed we have community/linux-grsec. Do we have a stance on additional kernels? I vaguely remember some stigma against it but not the details. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
For reference, it was discussed there:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2014-April/026170.html
From what I remember, essentially, quite a few people were against officially supporting another kernel
I know you were very opposed to it, but my impression was that others either just had concerns about it (which were addressed), didn't care or supported the idea. There were concerns about whether packagers for out-of-tree modules would need to worry about it and users potentially reporting bugs for the wrong package. The latter issue did happen once or twice before I added a prominent note to the wiki page about it. There was strong opposition to adding exceptions from the PaX userspace exploit mitigations to other packages, so I put support for that small set of features on the backburner and then approached it another way: https://github.com/thestinger/paxd/blob/master/paxd.conf Most of the features didn't require any integration work.
participants (5)
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Daniel Micay
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Jan Alexander Steffens
-
Johannes Löthberg