Not really an issue of whether or not Kernelcare support the kernel.
It's a question of "why isn't kcarectl --uname reporting the kernel version as being 2.6.32-696.23.1?"
# uname -r
2.6.32-696.18.7.el6.x86_64
# kcarectl --uname
2.6.32-696.20.1.el6
# kcarectl --check
The latest patch is applied.
# kcarectl --update
Kernel is safe
# kcarectl --uname
2.6.32-696.20.1.el6
# kcarectl --check
The latest patch is applied.
# kcarectl --patch-info | head -n 5
OS: centos6
kernel: kernel-2.6.32-696.18.7.el6
time: 2018-03-08 16:53:50
Again...
The latest version of the CentOS 6 kernel is 2.6.32-696.23.1.
As you can see in this example, the underlying kernel being run on this server is 2.6.32-696.18.7 - because I haven't rebooted in quite a while.
kcarectl --uname is reporting the kernel version as being 2.6.32-696.20.1 why isn't this reporting 2.6.32-696.23.1?
CentOS released the 2.6.32-696.23.1 kernel on March 14th, 2018. According to the patch-info from Kernelcare, the kernel that Kernelcare is running was last updated on 2018-03-08 16:53:50.
Now to be clear, I'm not really having any issues. I don't think the 2.6.32-696.23.1 kernel that CentOS released really fixes anything major. And rebasing the Kernelcare kernels to their upstream equivalents isn't something your team necessarily has to do - but it is something that your team typically does.
I'm just wondering if this was an oversight. It's March 27th now, it's been nearly two weeks since CentOS released the 2.6.32-696.23.1 kernel. That's what makes me think that this may be something that slipped through the cracks.
