[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SEUL: "Core" proof-of-concept
Neilen Marais wrote:
> Sounds fine. 2.0.29 was very stable... Why they still include 2.0.30 I
> don't know, as its the only 2.0.x kernel thats ever made me doubt
> linux's stability (but when I moved back to 2.0.29 the faith was
> restored :)
I used 2.0.30 for about a year, I gues and didn't see any problems.
What did you observe? Do I need to check for any contamination?
> Anyway, I won't be surprised if in the future 2.0.34 becomes the
> base in the end, because were it not for the inode security bug in
> 2.0.33 it might have been the last of the 2.0.x's. (If you find my
> description of the bug somewhat lacking check www.slashdot.org's back
> articles for a link to a better description :)
It was my understanding that the odd numbered kernels denoted unstable
and were changed to the next even number once the bugs were ironed out.
Is this not the case?