linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.0-rc1 out..

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: <54EB4A98.6020300@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:43:20 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jseward@....org
Subject: Re: Linux 4.0-rc1 out..

Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> .. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
> Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can just imagine
> somebody checking for meaningful versions.
> 
> Because the people have spoken, and while most of it was complete
> gibberish, numbers don't lie. People preferred 4.0, and 4.0 it shall
> be. Unless somebody can come up with a good argument against it.

The only argument that I can come up with is "we do not break userspace".
For example there is this "gem" in configure.ac of valgrind:


        case "${kernel}" in
             2.6.*|3.*)
                    AC_MSG_RESULT([2.6.x/3.x family (${kernel})])
                    AC_DEFINE([KERNEL_2_6], 1, [Define to 1 if you're using Linux 2.6.x or Linux 3.x])
                    ;;

             2.4.*)
                    AC_MSG_RESULT([2.4 family (${kernel})])
                    AC_DEFINE([KERNEL_2_4], 1, [Define to 1 if you're using Linux 2.4.x])
                    ;;

             *)
                    AC_MSG_RESULT([unsupported (${kernel})])
                    AC_MSG_ERROR([Valgrind works on kernels 2.4, 2.6])
                    ;;
        esac


This seems to be historic and unused now in the code base. I will send a
patch to valgrind-devel, that just gets rid of this check, but the check
is in all released versions of valgrind and probably others. I think
we do not care that much about failures when building valgrind on top of
systems running 2.2. If we do, I can certainly add a specific check for
1.*,2.0,2.1,2.2,2.3 that bails out then.


Christian

--
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/