On 22/05/16 04:36, (GalaxyMaster) wrote: > Fabian, > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote: >> On 21/05/16 09:57, (GalaxyMaster) wrote: >> I guess we can rebuild the kernel by changing the initial patch then. > > Yes, this is exactly what I did to confirm that SELinux is indeed usable. > >> I also had a quick look at the rpi kernel source tree and it seems they >> rebased to 4.4.x so wondering if that's not a good time to also bump to >> that release. > > Yes, they made the rpi-4.4.y branch to be their main branch. I also > compared the difference between rpi and kernel.org branches and the > effort required to backport this to the current CentOS7 upstream > kernel. Although it is not huge (around 10MB of patches) it would > require a week of my time to do so and I don't have a week right now. > So I guess I'm fine with using rpi-* as upstream for now. > > Additionally, I looked at the spec file for the kernel we are building > and it's a bit dirty (e.g. it does some post-install tweaking and > creates files which are not tracked by the package management). > I am going to create a kernel package with the latest kernel from > rpi-4.4.y with a cleaner spec file. > Will share a link to my GitHub repository once it's done. Cool, thanks a lot for the offer. Let us know when something is ready. I can also try to bump it on my side too in the mean time (but only a sysadmin here, not a developer) > >> To answer your question about el7 default : it doesn't support armhfp by >> default (as there is no upstream EL7 kernel for this) , and even el7 >> aarch64 deviates from the 3.10.0 kernel. > > I am fully aware of how RedHat maintains their stable kernel trees and > of their backport strategy. What I meant was that if we want to be as > close as possible to CentOS7 we should have taken the upstream package > from EL7 and applied the armhfp support on top of it. Anyway, as I > mentioned above, it's a full week work and I don't have enough time to > do it right now. > >> That's also the reason why we call the armhfp release "CentOS 7 >> userland", because kernel differs from the CentOS 7 x86_64 (see >> https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/AltArch/Arm32#head-447eb2193fd92db5a65be9cae5a6f95c3546605b) > > Thanks for the link (once we rebuild Pi3 kernel with the adjusted > value we could update SELinux status on that page). > Yes, I confirm that it works fine with just that change . I rebooted my rpi3 node with the test kernel files hosted here for now : http://armv7.dev.centos.org/repodir/arm-kernels/rpi2-4.1.19-2/ (Just a rebuild of previous srpm but with the modified patch for selinux) -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20160523/039a789b/attachment-0006.sig>