Ubuntu ARM and the linaro kernels

[John Rigby]

Oliver,

On the subject of Ubuntu sauce and security patches, at each linaro
kernel release I merge in the latest Ubuntu release so I believe the
linaro packaged kernel has all these.  My current plan is to continue
doing  to track the Ubuntu kernel as long as the Ubuntu kernel is
supported.

On the configuration issue we have plans to reduce the enabled drivers
in our kernel so we would probably need to build two versions of
kernels that are consumed by both Linaro and Ubuntu.

On the SRU issue, I currently take everything that Nicolas has in his
stable tree.  We don't have a formal process for signing off patches
on a mailing list.  However, most patches in the stable tree are
headed upstream and have been signed off on some other upstream list.
There is a mismatch here between linaro (latest bleeding edge) and
ubuntu (stable) requirements.

John

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> hi,
> Am Montag, den 08.11.2010, 15:46 +0000 schrieb Jamie Bennett:
>> > * linaro kernels used in ubuntu ARM would need to move to the
>> > supported
>> > package set (main) which makes them fall under all freeze restrictions
>> > the kernel team sets for ubuntu (only SRUs post kernel freeze, patches
>> > and changes all need to go through the ubuntu-kernel mailing list etc)
>>
>> I think we can deal with the via the SRU process. We have already been
>> using the SRU process this cycle for kernel changes so its a non-issue.
> well, the kernel freeze and SRU process would happen for you guys a lot
> earlier due to that, thats why i wanted to bring it up ...
>
>>
>> > * configuration changes in the linaro kernels would have to happen to
>> > match the ubuntu distro kernel configs in all places where they do not
>> > match yet (this also implies that ubuntu sauce needs to be added to
>> > the
>> > linaro kernels for making all distro features available)
>>
>> I'm not sure Linaro want to carry the Ubuntu sauce and match configs.
>> Linaro's continued effort to consolidate and stream-line kernels rather
>> than expand options to cover all eventualities may conflict, this would
>> need to be carefully investigated.
> one option i see is that we use the linaro branches as base and add all
> distro kernel specifics on top here, but thats something the kernel team
> has to agree to since they will have to be the ones doing that work (and
> i personally cant really judge how much work this is for them).
>
>> > * someone has to commit to do security support for these kernels to
>> > match the 18 months security support we provide for ubuntu images (can
>> > the ubuntu kernel team and the ubuntu security team commit to that ?)
>>
>> This would be a problem for Linaro. Currently we have no support options
>> that look like what you describe above. The only option at the moment
>> would be for the Ubuntu Security Team to provide security support for
>> the kernels once they come out of Linaro unless Linaro change their model.
> right, i would like to hear something from the security team about
> this...
>
>>
>> I would love to see the sharing of kernels here. We need to come up with
>> a good solution of which I don't have at the moment.
>>
>> I've cc'd linaro-dev in to solicit more comments from the Linaro side.
> doing likewise with the ubuntu-kernel ML now, since i'm not sure they
> constantly read ubuntu-devel
>
> ciao
>        oli
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-dev mailing list
> linaro-dev at lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
>
>