Re: Out of tree kernel images / Lustre image
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sorry, I hit the wrong button (send instead of save) so here we go again:
> I took over the ITP (237713) for Lustre from Andres Salomon and
> recently Alastair McKinstry also showed interest in this. Both of use
> use Lustre at work so there will be some paid time spend on keeping
> this current.
> Now to my question. Lustre needs a specialy patched kernel and builds
> a ton (~100MB uncompressed) of kernel modules and support
> binaries. How should that be handled?
> Would it be OK for lustre to build its own out-of-tree kernel image
> and modules? Or would that be too much extra work for the security
> team to support?
I'm ok with maintaining it from a security perspective if it tracks
the latest linux-source package and someone on your side is willing to
help with Lustre-specific issues (patch conflicts with security fixes,
lustre-specific security issues) throughout the lifetime of any stable
release it enters.
How big is the patchset these days, and what does it touch? I haven't
messed with Lustre since 2.4.20 where the core patches were mostly
adding intents, etc - stuff that I thought had been merged upstream in