189
Linux security vulnerabilities fixed per kernel version (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Something good coming out of AI, it seems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (42 children)

This is misleading.

Edit: "misleading" was the wrong word. I was just pointing out that showing data from 4.x to 5.x, 5.x to 6.x also would have made this post more meaningful.

Linux kernel full releases always have CVEs shortly after them because new features, drivers, memory handling tuning, and other capabilities arr introduced, and people (or ai) hammer away at them as soon as they appear.

I acknowledge that the bump has more amplitude because ai tools accelerate this, but this graph isn't the shocker you think it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    I thought Torvalds said major versions bumps were meaningless so 6.0 or 7.0 is the same as 6.12 to 6.13

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Minor versions go up according to a certain pattern based on how the change mgmt is handled for the kernel, but major releases are marked when the kernel team "feels it's the right time".

    From lwn: https://lwn.net/Articles/871989/

    To kernel developers, version numbers continued to have no meaning other than as a measure of where things were on the timeline, he said; users were encouraged to run the latest version. But if you tell customers they need to move from 3.20 to 4.0, they will consider it a multi-year effort that requires planning and paperwork; "so they will only do it when they have time, which is never". Going from 3.20 to 4.0 seems like a big jump, and 4.0 to 4.2 seems much smaller, even though the latter brings roughly double the number of changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Maybe in the past, but that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

    Torvalds pointed out that the numbers he applies to new kernel releases are essentially meaningless.

    “We haven't done releases based on features (or on "stable vs unstable") for a long, long time now. So that new major number does not mean that we have some big new exciting feature, or that we're somehow leaving old interfaces behind. It's the usual "solid progress" marker, nothing more.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

    The version numbers are not really meaningless, because anything higher than .20 is life-threatening to Torvalds. But technically and functionally, it doesn't matter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    I think he just doesn't want to wind up stuck again like with 2.6, which was the mainline kernel version from 2003 through 2011, finally ditching their classic semantic versioning and bumping to 3.0 from 2.6.39 in July 2011

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    How is it misleading? All you've said is that releases have cves which is what the graph shows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    As I mentioned, all kernel major releases have cve bumps, because (also mentioned) new kernel releases have new features and drivers.

    The bump itself doesn't show that ai is associated with more CVEs, because that bump is present after every kernel major release. It would have been better to show the bumps from previous releases to demonstrate the volume ai tools are helping to find.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    By "bump" you mean the quadrupling of CVEs being addressed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Or being introduced. Or neither of those two, because it's an isolated graph devoid of larger context

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    But we don't have enough information here; it says "CVE fixes per release", we don't know anything about them. Are these long-standing? Is some new process introducing security issues? We also have ongoing conversions of modules to rust, and lots of ongoing work.

    We can say AI tools are helping find these, and that may be true, but but this graph doesn't say that, it just says "CVE Number Big".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    This is misleading.

    Is it? What exactly is it misleading here? It just aligns with the usage of Ai, which means that Ai tools helped finding and fixing those issues. I don't see anything misleading.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    The meaningful data would have been to show the amplitude of the commit frequency bump compared to 5.0 and 6.0 releases, because, as I mentioned, they have bumps just after release also.

    This just shows a bump after a release, which doesn't really show "AI" anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    As others have mentioned, 5.0 and 6.0 and 7.0 are really just version bumps the same as any other with no extra meaning beyond "we got tired of being stuck on 2.6 for 8 years and decided we're not doing that anymore".

    It's not using semantic versioning and hasn't since 2011... Realistically, it hasn't since 2003 seeing as they spent 8 years without any single release being "big enough" to bump even the minor version number, let alone the major. Honestly, if they were still using that criteria from the pre-3.0 era, we'd probably be on something like 2.6.100 right now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (10 children)

    It shows that the CVE fixes were consistent during the last 2.5 years and 14 releases. And with the recent rise of Ai usage in the Kernel, this bump aligns.

    commit frequency bump compared to 5.0 and 6.0 releases

    Why 5.0 and 6.0, those are ancient. This goes back to 6.9 from May 2024, where Ai usage in the Kernel wasn't a thing until the recent few releases.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    It shows that the CVE fixes were consistent during the last 2.5 years and 14 releases.

    Right, yes. But if the transitions from 4.x to 5.0 and 5.x to 6.0 were also shown, we'd be able to see that the bump itself isn't significant, and that this happens after every major version release.

    The magnitude of the bump is what's important, and we can't see that without comparing to pre- and post- AI tooling.

    Why 5.0 and 6.0, those are ancient. This goes back to 6.9 from May 2024, where Ai usage in the Kernel wasn't a thing until the recent few releases.

    That's the whole point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    There is no need to go older. We have 14 releases in between 6.9 and 7.2.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I don't understand what you're saying... Those aren't major releases, those are dot releases, and they cross a major release.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Linux versioning does not work like that. There is no major release, the are all equivalent. It's not a joke, Linus Torvalds just don't want high numbers, so at the latest .20 (dot-twenty) release they create a new major one. But functionally it doesn't matter. Therefore the release version is meaningless for our discussion. I'm really serious about this, this is not in any way trolling or being toxic. All we need for this discussion are already present in the graph.

    Have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_version_history

    In contrast to semantic versioning, the major version carries no intrinsic meaning for the kernel, as Linux promises stable interfaces and behavior even when the major version changes. However, since version 3.x, minor versions have been capped around 20 to avoid the false perception that changes between large minor versions (e.g. from 5.30 to 5.31) would be less voluminous or impactful than changes between smaller minor versions (e.g. from 6.1 to 6.2).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (2 children)

    I think the other persons point is that if you were to start at 6.0 and sum all the CVEs until 7.0, the numbers would be similar to the CVEs from 7.0

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    This doesn't make sense. We are comparing single releases, not the entirety of 6.0 up to 7.0. How many years would this be? Also why do people want see 6.0? We have 14 last releases, in span of 2.5 years. And only the last two or 3 releases got a huuuge spike, which coincides with the broad usage and advancements of Ai in the Kernel.

    We don't need to compare older versions. The data is here and enough to support this claim. These are 14 releases for gods sake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's not AI usage in the kernel - it's the increase in AI to do code auditing that had seen the spike in bug reports. A lot of FLOSS projects are seeing this regardless of their use of not of AI to generate code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    It’s not AI usage in the kernel - it’s the increase in AI to do code auditing that had seen the spike in bug reports.

    Umm, that is Ai usage in the Kernel. I didn't talk about generating code. The developers use Ai. You even explain how they use Ai...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The graph would've been stronger if other versions were included. Something like this is for example, (it's lowk a bad example though since i can't really tell much about what the author is claiming as an effect of the figure)

    https://www.blogspan.net/linux-kernel-cve-2026-98432-tcp-ubuntu-fix/

    Which shows compared to previous years a similarish rise in cves but they appear more trivial (for a variety of reasons such as enhancing requitements to be high risk cve)? Would be worth replication

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    The graph would’ve been stronger if other versions were included.

    It shows versions up to v6.9 from May 2024, which is a span of 2.5 years approx. and 14 releases. And with the knowledge that Ai usage accelerated during the last few releases, we can conclude its a major factor here for the rise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent