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.
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”.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
That’s not how the version numbers for the Linux kernel work. 7.0 is the release that follows 6.19, they are both new mainline releases in the exact same way, and the first number increasing doesn’t mean anything.
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”.
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.
I thought Torvalds said major versions bumps were meaningless so 6.0 or 7.0 is the same as 6.12 to 6.13
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/
Maybe in the past, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at the moment.
I’m pretty sure if they were still using the old methodology, we’d still be on 2.6.x
Thanks for this, I think I now understand what others are sating about this.
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.
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
Lol he said he doesn’t want any version number higher than what he can count on his fingers and toes.
What does he do when he gets to 19.19?
Switch to …
1.1.1
I hope he is still around at that time.
I’d love to see the graph include data back to 4.x.
“Axis bias” is real
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.
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.
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
Yes, well, thanks for telling me again. For the 5th time.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
That’s the whole point.
There is no need to go older. We have 14 releases in between 6.9 and 7.2.
I don’t understand what you’re saying… Those aren’t major releases, those are dot releases, and they cross a major release.
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
Yes, I’m seeing that now, thank you. Makes sense.
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
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.
I am not saying I agree with the other person, just how I understand them.
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
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.
How is it misleading? All you’ve said is that releases have cves which is what the graph shows.
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.
That’s not how the version numbers for the Linux kernel work. 7.0 is the release that follows 6.19, they are both new mainline releases in the exact same way, and the first number increasing doesn’t mean anything.
Yes, acknowledged. I see the point some ppl were trying to make.
By “bump” you mean the quadrupling of CVEs being addressed?
Or being introduced. Or neither of those two, because it’s an isolated graph devoid of larger context
It’s “being discovered”. You need context? Here: https://zerodayclock.com/#where-the-vulnerability-exposure-is-growing
Yes, this is the point I was trying to make, there is no context.
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”.
Yeah, wasn’t the security community just complaining about the number of CVEs published recently which were just unfiltered bug reports?