Re: SEUL: "Core" proof-of-concept

[Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>]

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?