3 ms·

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-109.132 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-109.132 : linux (4.4.0-109.132) xenial; urgency=l

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-109.132 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/4.4.0-109.132 : linux (4.4.0-109.132) xenial; urgency=low * linux: 4.4.0-109.132 -proposed tracker (LP: #1742252) * Kernel trace with xenial 4.4 (4.4.0-108.131, Candidate kernels for PTI fix) (LP: #1741934) - SAUCE: kaiser: fix perf crashes - fix to original commit diff'ing the two changes it was this: > diff -u linux-4.4.0/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c linux-4.4.0/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c > --- linux-4.4.0/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c > +++ linux-4.4.0/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c > @@ -415,7 +415,6 @@ > return; > > per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, cpu).ds = NULL; > - kfree(ds); > } > > void release_ds_buffers(void) plus it's here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1741934/comments/17 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1741934...

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
They consider a bug that renders the OS unable to boot a "low" urgency!?!
- revelation 9y ago
  The last time I used Ubuntu, they hadn't yet realized what vertical display synchronization is, and nobody had explained to them that you don't do your rendering on the framebuffer you're currently scanning out. So an occasional boot of the recovery kernel truly vanishes behind the plain broken display they expect you to put up with.
- lunorian 9y ago
  Sorry fam - security issues are more important ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - arcticbull 9y ago
    I think it's fair to say build 108 has no security issues :P in fact, it's the most secure one yet.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Yup. It's so secure that they don't even load userspace into RAM!
- geofft 9y ago
  I don't think the urgency field is meaningful in Ubuntu, especially for post-release fixes - I believe a package migrates as soon as it's approved and passes builds/tests. The urgency field comes from Debian, which uses it to describe how many days a package should sit in Debian unstable before migrating to Debian testing, in the hopes that if it's buggy, people will file a bug before it migrates to testing. The Debian default is now "medium" (5 days) instead of "low" (10 days), but people with older tools tend to generate changelog entries that say "low". (And even in Debian, I don't think the field has any meaning for post-release updates; I think it only applies to unstable-to-testing migrations.)
- mst 9y ago
  Given this seems to be affecting a relatively small number of systems, that's not necessarily unreasonable. It might be very urgent for the people affected, but still low urgency for the userbase overall as compared to other problems. Though it seems more likely to me that this bug was filed as a placeholder for the already-written patch and verification thereof, and the person filing it simply didn't bother with the urgency field since it wasn't really a bug-report-as-such.

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago

They consider a bug that renders the OS unable to boot a "low" urgency!?!

revelation 9y ago
The last time I used Ubuntu, they hadn't yet realized what vertical display synchronization is, and nobody had explained to them that you don't do your rendering on the framebuffer you're currently scanning out. So an occasional boot of the recovery kernel truly vanishes behind the plain broken display they expect you to put up with.
lunorian 9y ago
Sorry fam - security issues are more important ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- arcticbull 9y ago
  I think it's fair to say build 108 has no security issues :P in fact, it's the most secure one yet.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Yup. It's so secure that they don't even load userspace into RAM!
geofft 9y ago
I don't think the urgency field is meaningful in Ubuntu, especially for post-release fixes - I believe a package migrates as soon as it's approved and passes builds/tests. The urgency field comes from Debian, which uses it to describe how many days a package should sit in Debian unstable before migrating to Debian testing, in the hopes that if it's buggy, people will file a bug before it migrates to testing. The Debian default is now "medium" (5 days) instead of "low" (10 days), but people with older tools tend to generate changelog entries that say "low". (And even in Debian, I don't think the field has any meaning for post-release updates; I think it only applies to unstable-to-testing migrations.)
mst 9y ago
Given this seems to be affecting a relatively small number of systems, that's not necessarily unreasonable. It might be very urgent for the people affected, but still low urgency for the userbase overall as compared to other problems. Though it seems more likely to me that this bug was filed as a placeholder for the already-written patch and verification thereof, and the person filing it simply didn't bother with the urgency field since it wasn't really a bug-report-as-such.