linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Makefile: "make kernelrelease" should show the correct full kernel version

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C6B9F53.6040100@inria.fr>
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:52:35 +0200
From:	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Makefile: "make kernelrelease" should show the correct
 full kernel version

Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a écrit :
> On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a écrit :
>>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks
>>>> like a
>>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
>>> so we need to regenerate it.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing your point here?
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
>> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
>> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
>>    kernelrelease      - Output the release version string
>> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
>> display it too" (and you need write access).
>>
>
> I believe you will also need write access even without this patch,
> if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct.
>

If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked
fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember.

Brice

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/