Question on LFS in Redhat

Question on LFS in Redhat

[Dale Amon]

If there are any Redhat folk around... could you tell
me if you've included the LFS patches in your:

	2.4.16-9smp

I'm chatting with a company whose product may use
this and it just might be the case they now support
>2TB filesystems without having realized they did ;-)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
   Dale Amon     amon@islandone.org    +44-7802-188325
       International linux systems consultancy
     Hardware & software system design, security
    and networking, systems programming and Admin
	      "Have Laptop, Will Travel"
------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 370 bytes --]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 16:10, Dale Amon wrote:
> If there are any Redhat folk around... could you tell
> me if you've included the LFS patches in your:
> 
> 	2.4.16-9smp

Red Hat never released a 2.4.16 kernel for production use.

However we also never released a 2.4 kernel with the large BLOCK patch.
All 2.4 kernels we shipped can do files > 2 Gb of course.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Dale Amon]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:38:38PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 16:10, Dale Amon wrote:
> > If there are any Redhat folk around... could you tell
> > me if you've included the LFS patches in your:
> > 
> > 	2.4.16-9smp
> 
> Red Hat never released a 2.4.16 kernel for production use.

Hmmm, that's what is showing and the Raidzone guy here in
the UK told me they are stock... 

> However we also never released a 2.4 kernel with the large BLOCK patch.
> All 2.4 kernels we shipped can do files > 2 Gb of course.

But you wouldn't be able to handle file systems larger
than 2TB then I presume?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
   Dale Amon     amon@islandone.org    +44-7802-188325
       International linux systems consultancy
     Hardware & software system design, security
    and networking, systems programming and Admin
	      "Have Laptop, Will Travel"
------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Mike Fedyk]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 11:58:27PM +0000, Dale Amon wrote:
> But you wouldn't be able to handle file systems larger
> than 2TB then I presume?

Correct, I'd suggest 2.6 instead of patching your 2.4 kernel.  The 2.6
drivers have had more testing with large filesystems/block devices, and
that's very light, and even lighter on patched 2.4.

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 11:58:27PM +0000, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:38:38PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 16:10, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > If there are any Redhat folk around... could you tell
> > > me if you've included the LFS patches in your:
> > > 
> > > 	2.4.16-9smp
> > 
> > Red Hat never released a 2.4.16 kernel for production use.
> 
> Hmmm, that's what is showing and the Raidzone guy here in
> the UK told me they are stock... 

Raidzone does not ship a "stock" kernel but a kernel with a lot of changes
including changes to make their binary only modules possible (the legality
of this is left as an excercise to the reader).

You really shouldn't be running a 2.4.16 kernel (not without the latest
security patches for such a kernel from a distro) given the amount of security issues
fixed since... and since I don't think any distro ever shipped 2.4.16 (some
shipped 2.4.17, a bunch shipped 2.4.18 but even RH doesn't do patches for
that 2.4.18 tree anymore since they have been obsoleted by 2.4.20 and newer
kernels).


> > However we also never released a 2.4 kernel with the large BLOCK patch.
> > All 2.4 kernels we shipped can do files > 2 Gb of course.
> 
> But you wouldn't be able to handle file systems larger
> than 2TB then I presume?

correct.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Dale Amon]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> You really shouldn't be running a 2.4.16 kernel (not without the latest
> security patches for such a kernel from a distro) given the amount of security issues
> fixed since... and since I don't think any distro ever shipped 2.4.16 (some
> shipped 2.4.17, a bunch shipped 2.4.18 but even RH doesn't do patches for
> that 2.4.18 tree anymore since they have been obsoleted by 2.4.20 and newer
> kernels).

Not really my choice... and from what you say I'd better
not *touch* their stock kernel if I a project for which I 
specced that box happens.

Also, fresh feedback from the Consensys is that:

	"Just to be precise - As of today the kernel 
	 is 2.4.18-i59smp #1"

So that is a little better but still a little out
of date. I'm not terribly worried about the local
exploit because you don't tend to want to allow external
login accounts on things on your SAN's...

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
   Dale Amon     amon@islandone.org    +44-7802-188325
       International linux systems consultancy
     Hardware & software system design, security
    and networking, systems programming and Admin
	      "Have Laptop, Will Travel"
------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question on LFS in Redhat

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 01:09:25AM +0000, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > You really shouldn't be running a 2.4.16 kernel (not without the latest
> > security patches for such a kernel from a distro) given the amount of security issues
> > fixed since... and since I don't think any distro ever shipped 2.4.16 (some
> > shipped 2.4.17, a bunch shipped 2.4.18 but even RH doesn't do patches for
> > that 2.4.18 tree anymore since they have been obsoleted by 2.4.20 and newer
> > kernels).
> 
> Not really my choice... and from what you say I'd better
> not *touch* their stock kernel if I a project for which I 
> specced that box happens.
> 
> Also, fresh feedback from the Consensys is that:
> 
> 	"Just to be precise - As of today the kernel 
> 	 is 2.4.18-i59smp #1"

can you ask them for the full source of this (including that of derived
works they include in it) ? I'd be curious what stuff they include

> So that is a little better but still a little out
> of date. I'm not terribly worried about the local
> exploit because you don't tend to want to allow external
> login accounts on things on your SAN's...

you forgot the remote hash-collision DoS issues in 2.4.18 etc etc


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]