On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:44:27PM -0500, Corey Wright wrote: > the most recent vserver stable patch is 2.2.0.7 for kernel 2.6.22. the > most recent security patch to 2.6.22 is maintained by oliver pinter. i > have advertised this fact on this mailing list [1] and elsewhere [2]. it > all patches cleanly except for the EXTRAVERSION in the top-level Makefile > (which is to be expected when using patches from two or more sources). > > that describes my kernel sources until a new vserver stable patch comes out > for a recent kernel. > > [1] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive?mss:978:200804:aahmcfjcnaaembflfhob > [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/281711/ yes, some people maintain older kernels, e.g. Adrian Bunk - 2.6.16.x: http://kerneltrap.org/2.6.16 > kernel sources so heavily that merging the vserver patch is a tedious > affair (assuming you know enough about the kernel and C programming to > undertake the task at all). that's why i use a vanilla kernel: despite the > manual effort to regularly build new kernel versions to maintain security > support, it's the easiest kernel source to patch with vserver and the only > one the linux-vserver project supports. yes > i formerly used ubuntu's kernel source, because each release had a minimum > of 18 months of security support, and i merged the closest vserver stable > patch with it, but i got tired of spending a whole weekend performing the > merge and worrying if i merged everything correctly so as to not introduce > any security problems (eg debian's openssl fiasco). yeah, i probably spend > an equivalent amount of time over 18 months compiling each new kernel > release and vserver patch as i would previously spend merging, but it's > pretty evenly distributed across 18 months and a relatively easy task > (which is good for security). ubuntu's kernel is very huge (many addons against vanilla), but there is LTS (Long Time Supported) releases supported 5 years for servers, which is very good if someone maintain vserver patch for ubuntu kernel -- 5o Peter.Mann at tuke.sk