> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Marc Dionne ... > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:16:48 -0500 > > Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT) > >> [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> > As a follow up to your response- will this problem "go away" for > >> > kernel version 2.6.33? If so, perhaps I can upgrade to that version. > >> > > >> > As an alternative- can I fix this by downgrading the kernel to some > >> > lesser version (say 2.6.30)? > >> > >> "The IMA problem" effectively exists in 2.6.30-2.6.32. > > > > ...however, Simon tells me that the fedora 2.6.30 packages may not have > > enabled IMA, so he's probably right that 2.6.30 would be fine. > > Yeah, pretty sure there was no Fedora 2.6.30 kernel with IMA enabled, > that came with 2.6.31. > > The problem with the IMA fix as it was done in 2.6.33 is that it makes > substantial changes to how/where the IMA accounting is done - probably > not something you'd want as-is for 2.6.32-stable. > > What I hope is that Fedora 12 will get an update to 2.6.33 in the not > too distant future. If we take 2.6.32 as an example, it was added to > F12 roughly a month after its release, and 2.6.33 was released on Feb. > 24. I don't know what the plan is, and looking in Koji I haven't seen > any 2.6.33 builds targeted for F12 yet.
2.6.33 may have some badness ahead too. Somewhere in the release cycle the INIT_WORK definition changed to call the (new) __init_work function, which is GPL only. This breaks the released OpenAFS kernel modules. btw, as I recall, the 2.6.33 fc13 builds will otherwise work OK on fc12 (if you also upgrade the linux-firmware rpm). _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
