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: <54ECAF73.8000406@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:05:55 +0100
From:	François Valenduc <francoisvalenduc@...il.com>
To:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.0-rc1 out..

Le 24/02/15 11:49, François Valenduc a écrit :
> Le 24/02/15 08:40, Christian Borntraeger a écrit :
>> Am 24.02.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Mike Galbraith:
>>> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> 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])
>>>>                     ;;
>>>
>>>
>>> Heh, if this is an argument, we have one hell of a lot of reverting to
>>> do :)   Crash for example breaks at much higher resolution, and indeed
>>> just broke yet again.  Tough titty for userspace methinks.
>>
>> Well crash is not a good example as it by design goes beyond the user ABI
>> and directly touches the kernel data structures ;-)
>>
>> I am not requesting to go back to 3.*, I was just pointing out that if we apply
>> strict rules on "we dont break userspace", the move to 3.* and 4.* was a mistake.
>> We do provide uname26 as a workaround, so this is ok and the switch to 4 should
>> be a lot smoother. 
>>
>> But better end the discussion here :-)
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> FWIW, valgrind svn is fixed as of yesterday (for good, so Linux 5.* 6.*.. should
>> also work)
>>
> Changing to v4.0 also seems to be a problem either for genkernel, lvm or
> cryptsetup. I use LVM on an encrypted root on gentoo and it doesn't work
> anymore. However it works if I rename the kernel to 3.20-rc1.
> 
> Does anybody has an idea about that ?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> François Valenduc
> 
Sorry for the noise, I must have done something wrong. I just tried
again and it worked.

François Valenduc
--
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/