Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux Kernel 2.6.7 Released 303

Posted by michael from the dist-upgrade dept.
conrausch writes "German Heise News reports among others that the new Linux Kernel 2.6.7 was just released, and that it fixes the previously mentioned bug in the floating point exception handling. Whether or not you offer shell access to other people, get it now from kernel.org or one of the mirrors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Kernel 2.6.7 Released More

Linux Kernel 2.6.7 Released

Comments Filter:

  • NVidia? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xhorder ( 232326 )
    Does the NVidia driver work with it?

  • what about 2.4? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PatrickThomson ( 712694 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:44AM (#9440661)
    When are we going to see 2.4.27 with this bugfix? not all of us can afford to, or are able to switch to 2.6

    • Re:what about 2.4? (Score:2, Informative)

      by andrej73 ( 779231 )
      patch for i386 [bkbits.net]

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:59AM (#9440814)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The Slackware 9.1 kernel has already been patched and released, still using the 2.4.26 version number.

      uname -a now shows:

      Linux mosschops 2.4.26 #6 Mon Jun 14 21:07:47 PDT 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux

      (just a change of date)

      You can get it here [slackware.com]. Note: there's a 100 user limit on the server, and not all the mirrors have been updated yet.

  • Argh! Dilemma! (Score:5, Funny)

    by troon ( 724114 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:44AM (#9440662)

    Do I demonstrate my machismo via my large and increasing 2.6.6 uptime, or do I impress the chicks by running the latest kernel release?

    Help!

  • Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:44AM (#9440664)
    Given that 2.6.x has been out for a while now, is anyone running the 2.6 series in a full blown production environment yet (say, database or web server)? If so, how does it compare to the 2.4 series?

    • Re:Just curious (Score:2, Informative)

      by bwindle2 ( 519558 )
      I run 2.6.6. on an SMP machine, ext3 on SCSI RAID5 that runs MySQL/Apache/MRTG/BigBrother. It has been completely stable.

      bwindle@balrog:~$ uptime
      09:06:48 up 36 days, 22:03, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 0.55, 0.43
      bwindle@balrog:~$ uname -a
      Linux balrog 2.6.6 #3 SMP Mon May 10 10:55:43 EDT 2004 i686 GNU/Linux

    • Re:Just curious (Score:3, Informative)

      by Superfly_rh ( 639969 )
      I've got it on two servers, had it on three but had to back down to 2.4 for one.

      It's running a Qmail/Courier IMAP server w/ webmail interface. And it's running a rather busy nfs/samba server.

      I had it running on a second NFS/Samba server that was using LVM2 (only difference that I can tell). With the 2.6 kernel I got kernel panics 2-3 times a week. So I went down to the 2.4 kernel and it hasn't crashed since.

      • Re:Just curious (Score:4, Informative)

        by leandrod ( 17766 ) <l@dutras.DALIorg minus painter> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:30AM (#9441085) Homepage Journal
        >
        I had it running on a second NFS/Samba server that was using LVM2 (only difference that I can tell). With the 2.6 kernel I got kernel panics 2-3 times a week.

        Similar experience here. Had 2.6.3, if I remember well, with LVM, software RAID5 and ext3. Didn't got kernel panics, but abort logs that forced a reboot 'cause the filesystems were remounted readonly. Eventually I lost the /, so backed down to 2.4.

        Tried to follow the issues in the relevant mailing lists, there was little interest by the powers that be.

        I guess Tannenbaun was right, monolithic kerni are getting just too complex. If only the Hurd got critical mass...

    • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shaman ( 1148 ) <shaman&kos,net> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:59AM (#9441372) Homepage
      I have approximately 20 machines using 2.6 since last fall and with the exception of one (an AMD-64 box), they have all been exemplary. That machine became stable with 2.6.6 though its BIOS seems flakey (hardware problems.. ugh)

      In particular, my HT machines seem to perform very well with 2.6.3 and up.
    • Yes, I have been doing it since 2.6.1 or so. We have databases, mail servers, ftp servers, apache servers, samba, blah blah.

      I've had ZERO issues, in fact, it's been fantastic. I strongly recommend it.

      Only thing to watch out is that you must have module-init-tools installed, though there may be other gotchyas per distro.

    • Re:Just curious (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jusdisgi ( 617863 )
      Yeah, I've been running a varietty of production boxen (web, email, mysql, etc.) on 2.6 since about .3 and I have no complaints. I don't see any reason to install a server with 2.4 anymore...the stability is the same as it always was--flawless.

    • Been running Oracle 9iRelease 2 on Kernel 2.6.6 quite nicely.

      No problems yet!

      The real problem I have is if I want to use the Java utils with 9i, which given the compiler and lib requirements with Oracle's jre, can get quite dicey.

      I rarely use the Java admin utils but they are nice to play with.

      -Hack

  • Now everyone... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ThisNukes4u ( 752508 ) <tcoppi AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:45AM (#9440667) Homepage
    Is going to rush to download this because it fixes probably the most destructive kernel hole in a few years. And its on slashdot.
    • it's not really destructive, it's only a DOS (local too).
    • probably the most destructive kernel hole in a few years.

      Just recently there were a bunch of mremap exploits allowing local root access. This is less severe (but still very bad).

    • most destructive? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @09:41AM (#9441755) Homepage Journal
      Naaah, IMHO the memremap exploits were worse.

      This one is 'only' a local DOS. Even if, as others say, crashed time is money, it could be much worse. At least you don't get 0wn3d, and you have a way to get back up by kicking users off, temporarily.

      Drifting the topic, slightly...

      This exploit, as well as the mremap ones, were derived from intimate examination of the source. So far, most of the Windows exploits have really been using 'features' for nefarious ends, not exploits of bugs. The recent Windows worms exploit a true bug in the security system, but I've heard that this one was developed from access to the source that leaked.

      The Linux source has been out and discussed for over a decade, with plenty of time to find truly deep bugs. With the leak of WinNT/2k source, one hole was revealed fairly quickly. As people REALLY study that source, what else is going to emerge? (And how much code was really rewritten for XP vs reused?) Note that this isn't just a function of the source leak. As Microsoft shows more with Shared Source, more people will have the kind of access needed for this type of exploit.

  • Got it (Score:5, Informative)

    by pcmanjon ( 735165 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:45AM (#9440669)
    I just compiled and installed it. It's not that bad.. or good... orr... how the hell should I know?

    System doesn't seem to run much different, I haven't read the changelog

    but for those of you who want to read the changelog it can be found HERE:

    http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/Chan ge Log-2.6.7

  • Time for download then (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Impie ( 46586 )
    And see if my Radeon 9800 Pro will work with my Nvidia Nforce2 chipset.

    Anyone gotten Nvidia Nforce2 and Radeon 9800 Pro working with 3d Accel?

  • I've got Fedora Core 2.

    yum update kernel*

    should install 2.6.7 right?

    I'd much prefer to use an auto installer, I'm not ready for the full shebang yet.

    Enlighten me here.
    How is a full compile of the kernel done and how long would it take on a 3GHz,756RAM computer?
    • Ok, I'll bite

      It won't take a lot of time, not with your system specs. We're talking about 30min tops. Depends a lot on what kind of modules etc you need to make.

      If you've never done it, though, you may want to a) ask someone who knows this stuff for help or/and b) read a few docs on the subject. If you don't know what you're doing, you most probably will end up with something missing, stuff like soundcard support or something. A good place to start (in my biased opinion ofcourse) would be here for insta [gentoo.org]
    • I've just remembered to ask!!

      Is this going to fix the Firewire issue?

      • Yes. (Score:3, Informative)

        by HaloZero ( 610207 )
        From the changelog:

        Ben Collins:
        * ieee1394: CSR1212 Extended ROM bug fixes
        * ieee1394: Fix possible NULL ptr dereference with calls to find_ctx()
        * ieee1394: Handle swsusp better in kernel threads
        * ohci1394: Handle invalid max-packet-size
        * ieee1394: Revision sync
        * ohci1394: Fix incorrect HPSB_WARNING to HPSB_ERR
    • Making a Kernel isn't too hard. You find the correct image, (yep you probably want 2.6.7 ;), download the .tar.bz2 version. To keep this short, we'll stick it in /usr/src: 1) su - 2) cd /usr/src 3) wget http://full.url.to.file.including.filename 4) tar xjvf linux-...tar.bz2 5) ln -s ./linux-2.6.7 ./linux 6) cd linux-2.6.7 7) make menuconfig 8) configure options - read the help for information about options, if necessary google around, usually it's pretty easy to find information about specific options 9)
      • Just a few comments to your build guide:

        1) su -

        Not neccessary at this early step, ie. not needed for compiling the kernel. Do a 'su' when you are about to install the compiled kernel&modules.

        2) cd /usr/src
        5) ln -s ./linux-2.6.7 ./linux

        Not needed. 5) is actually discouraged by Linus. Just unpack the linux kernel sources somewhere and cd into that directory.

        9) make bzImage
        10) make modules

        both commands are only needed for 2.4.x kernels and if you compile a kernel for the ix86 platform. I
        • What should be under /usr/src/linux is a version of the kernel headers that your glibc was compiled against. Thus, you may have /usr/src/linux as the 2.6.6 headers that you built glibc with, when you upgrade the kernel to 2.6.7, you just use it under /usr/src/linux-2.6.7 and leave /usr/src/linux alone.
    • Fedora Core 2 has already a kernel update. See the announcement [redhat.com] of the 2.6.6-1.435 kernel. So all you need is getting the RPM and install it.

      The question is, when will this patch show up on other distributions. People are sometimes not able to compile a vanilla kernel or a vanilla kernel can cause headache, e.g. SuSE 9.1 formats your filesystem with reiserfs and ACLs, but a vanilla kernel might not support this backported ACL feature.

      Seen the kernel release from this point of view means, that the sistr

  • Problems with JFS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by henley ( 29988 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:48AM (#9440702) Homepage

    Anyone else unable to compile with JFS enabled as module?

    fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c: In function `add_index':
    fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c:388: parse error before `struct'
    fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c:389: `temp_table' undeclared (first use in this function)
    fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c:389: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
    fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c:389: for each function it appears in.)
    make[3]: *** [fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.o] Error 1
    make[2]: *** [fs/jfs] Error

    Google shows no hits, and it's not important enough for me to track any further at the minute (since disabling JFS is an adequate work-around for me).....

  • English: Linux Today has human redable changelog (Score:5, Informative)

    by VC ( 89143 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:48AM (#9440705)
    Linux 2.6.7 [linuxtoday.com]
    • Did those who modded this informative actually visit the link?

      "Summary of changes from v2.6.7-rc3 to v2.6.7"

      I know very few people running rc3, so the only relevant changelog is the one from the previously released version, i.e. 2.6.6. A link to that one can be found directly on kernel.org and it's very much worth reading the extensive changelog, since there are numerous surprises that cannot be found in the changelog from rc3.

      The extensive involvement of xfreedesktop.org contributors is worth noticing.
  • I was going to post a link to a bablefish translation, but it really doesn't add anything new. There's a 2.6.7 release. It has minor fixes. And Linus Torvalds corrects the expenditure the nose with the treatment of Floating POINT exception.

    -

  • You can thank me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bender647 ( 705126 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:49AM (#9440720)
    I knew if I patched and rebuilt 2.6.6 yesterday they would release 2.6.7 today :(

  • Not upgrading... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by halivar ( 535827 ) <.bfelger. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:51AM (#9440738)
    Those of use still running P3-500's on old mobo's don't have very many compelling reasons to upgrade from 2.6.3.

    If in doubt, don't upgrade unless you need new support for essential hardware or need to cover a security vulnerability. I leanred that after b0rking several systems trying to keep my kernel perpetually updated.
    • Are you sure?

      I upgraded my p133 and it feels much faster for interactive use.

    • Re: Not upgrading... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Those of use still running P3-500's on old mobo's don't have very many compelling reasons to upgrade from 2.6.3.

      Kernel 2.6.3 had a very broken OSS ALSA emulation layer. This is why I switched down to 2.6.2. Version 2.6.5 and above have a major ALSA fix. So if you use your soundcard at all, then it is definitely worth it to upgrade.

  • Is it just me, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aixou ( 756713 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @07:53AM (#9440754)
    or are the kernel version numbers escalating rather quickly. Already at 2.6.7? Isn't the 2.4 kernel still at 2.4.2x? Can someone explain to me the reason behind the quick rise? Are they just anxious to get to v.3?
    • thats 2.4.twenty-x, not 2.4.2.x, so 2.4 is still way more versions ahead.
    • The first 8-10 revisions in a 2.X release tend to go quite quickly.

      Some even say, that the kernel isn't stable till at least .10 :)

      It sure seemed that way when it went from 2.2 to 2.4

      The 2.4.0 to 2.4.10 seemed like overnight, and then it slowed down to a small humm :p

    • Re:Is it just me, (Score:5, Informative)

      by tunah ( 530328 ) <sam&krayup,com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:11AM (#9440926) Homepage
      2.4 is no longer being "developed" as such, it's being "maintained". So, in theory, you only get new releases for bugfixes of one kind or another.

      2.6, while "stable", is still under development. It seems a little inconsistent, but it seems to work - the kernel guys get it reasonably stable for 2.6.0, a horde of regular users gets it and so there's more feedback/bug reports, and it all develops quite fast for a while, eventually everything calms down and the Downtime Costs Me $1000 A Minute people pick it up, and the kernel guys get to work on a (much more fun, I'm sure) unstable (odd-numbered) branch. At least that's how it looks to me...

    • v 3?

      Hehe, they can speed to 2.6.40 if they wish, but will for that reason not be any closer to 3.0.0. :-)

    • Re:Is it just me, (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sunspire ( 784352 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:14AM (#9440952)
      The 2.6.xx revisions have no bearing at all on when the 3.0.0 or 2.7.0 trees will get created. The quick turn around times are due to many factors; the new versioning and source control procedures put in place for 2.6 naturally encourage a more rapid pace while elimating the "did my patch make it into Linus's tree?" problems of yesteryear, which in turn has people submitting more, perhaps smaller, patches in a very rapid fashion. The 2.6 kernel is also right now being developed by more developers than ever, until the 2.7 branch gets spun all the efforts are basically focused on this single tree, timely releases keep code divergence down and hopefully prevents 20kloc ALSA merges from happening.

      What, are you afraid they're suddenly going to run out of numbers for the 2.6.xx branch? ;) Hint: after 2.6.99 comes 2.6.100. With vendor kernels you can't say where in the 2.6 branch you are anyway, when you're running 2.6.6-1.423 it's can be anywhere between 2.6.6 and 2.6.10 feature and security wise.
    • They go through the small numbers quickly for a number of reasons and then slow down. Essentially, there are a lot of small changes that they wanted to make from 2.6.0, and they want to get all of the small changes in before they start on big disruptive stuff (which will start 2.7); once localized changes are less important than rearranging awkward interfaces, 2.7 will start, 2.6 will be turned over to Andrew Morton, and 2.6 will change more slowly, since people will tend to work with the nice new interface
    • Is it just me, or are the kernel version numbers escalating rather quickly. Already at 2.6.7? Isn't the 2.4 kernel still at 2.4.2x? Can someone explain to me the reason behind the quick rise? Are they just anxious to get to v.3?

      Oh poor dear. It's just you.

      26 > 7, significantly. I know it would make it easier for simpletons to digest if the number was written 2.6.07 but then again kernel code isn't for simpletons.

      Meow.
  • If the lamers have ftp upload ability and can execute cgi's via apache you'better have that fix in there too. I guess every single free webhost in the world with cgi's will go down in the next few days.

  • Alan Cox? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mqRakkis ( 521550 ) <rnurminen&gmail,com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:10AM (#9440918) Homepage
    Alan needs to get to a linux hacking rehab. He still has couple of months left [slashdot.org] of his year off and I already see him in the ChangeLog!

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:11AM (#9440929)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • quick fix ! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 )
    Someone told me today morning that linux has a security hole

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1612368,00. as p

    and just see how fast things get fixed on this side of the planet !!

    mindboggling

  • -mm patches? (Score:3)

    by Ice_Balrog ( 612682 ) <ice_balrog@netzer o . net> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @08:57AM (#9441337)
    I've been curious about what the -mm patches actually do. I know that they introduce some experimental stuff into the kernel, but that's about all I could get from Google about them. Do they improve preformance? Implement new features?

    • Re:-mm patches? (Score:5, Informative)

      by numark ( 577503 ) <jcolsonNO@SPAMndgonline.com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @09:54AM (#9441903) Homepage Journal
      -mm patches are patches to the kernel source by a guy named Andrew Morton. Basically, his patches are more of a "testing ground" for new features that, while useful to some, may be not up to the point of risking including them into a production kernel that is used by businesses who need stable kernels. The features are therefore put into Morton's patches so they can be tested by people who want to take the risk, and some of these patches may eventually migrate to the standard kernel after testing.

  • MM patches question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @09:45AM (#9441793) Homepage Journal
    Could someone tell me a bit about the MM patches? I've used Morton's patches for some time now but I never understood when the guts of his patches made it into an actual vanilla kernel release. Does anyone know? For example the last MM patch as of right now is for 2.6.7-rc3. Does that mean the vanilla 2.6.7 now contains all of MM before that? I never have quite understood that.
  • Does anyone else find kernel.org quite insane? 1007 processes, pumping 250Mb/1000Mb, with uptimes (before they upgraded to 2.6) over a year.
    Me wants root@kernel.org. Just to say I had it. :)

    On another note - vsftpd is supposed to be really good, but it's not as flexible as proftpd, is it.

  • Supermount (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bralkein ( 685733 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:11AM (#9442799)
    I just thought I would post a brief message about supermount. If anyone wants to upgrade to 2.6.7 and still use supermount, I don't think vanilla kernels have it in there (yet, I'm sure it'll get in there sooner or later). I'm pretty sure the Mandrake and Gentoo kernels have support for it (gentoo-dev-sources do, anyway), but I just looked at gentoo-dev-sources and it is at version 2.6.5, dunno about Mandrake, but I'm sure it will take a few days for all the distros to catch up.

    If you want to upgrade for security reasons, but you also want supermount in your kernel (as I do), this guy [optusnet.com.au] seems to have a patch for 2.6.7, which might come in handy if you don't want to wait for your distro to catch up. I am going to use this patch myself, but I cannot guarantee that it won't bone your system so to speak. The patch is not just supermount, it looks like it has some other stuff in it too, so decide for yourself!

    Seeing as how I'm posting this, I may as well give a little background for those not "in the know". Supermount is a sort of filesystem, you mount your CD-ROM and floppy drives (or even USB sticks) with it, and it will automatically mount and unmount the media when you insert or remove it, kind of like on Windows. Personally, I think it is great, and it is hard to live without it now I have it.

    You can learn more about it at the project website. [sourceforge.net] Jeez, if it turns out the vanilla kernel does have supermount after all, I am going to look a right idiot... *presses Submit*

    • Re:Supermount (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gid ( 5195 )
      I wish it would get included in the main kernel already. It's such a desirable thing, I can't believe it hasn't made it in yet.

      From the FAQ:

      Q: Will supermount be included in standard kernel?

      A: Frankly speaking, I do not know. Version for 2.4 kernel is still more of a hack so I would not even try to ask for it. I still do not consider 2.6 version to be ready for inclusion in mainline - although it would definitely make some things easier. If anyone thinks supermount should be part of standard kernel - fe

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close