Re: Might be worth while to update your kernel

Am 12.09.25 um 20:52 schrieb Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via
lfs-support Mailing List):
> On 9/11/25 10:53 PM, Xi Ruoyao ([email protected] via lfs-support
> Mailing List) wrote:
> 
>> You should ALWAYS use the latest stable or LTS kernel if you are so
>> careful about security, instead of only upgrading when a news comes into
>> the home page of your browser or something.
> 
> I agree for new builds.  However, for established systems it is useful
> to note that the kernel get updated about about six times a month. 
According to my kernel build-log and memory, an LTS-kernel gets updated
around 4 times a month.

> Updating that often is clearly impractical.  For a lot of LFS users
Why would keeping the very core-component of a Linux-system up-to-date
be impractical?  A scripted build (-j6) and install of a customized
-6.12.xx takes about 5:30 minutes on my system, including some checks
and backups.  That's a snap compared to other components.  A
non-automated update would take longer but still would not be
impractical but rather well-invested time - even if it had to be done
several times a month.

> where there is only one user, most of the security issues are not relevant.
Then which _are_ relevant?  I don't have the knowledge or the time to
figure that out case for case.  My strategy therefore is to follow the
recommendation of the kernel-devs.  And for most of the mitigations this
is "Y".  For me, the performance penalty that may come with that is
imperceptable.


Rainer

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/lfs-support
Unsubscribe: See the above information page