[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a85b7749-38b2-8ce9-c15a-8acb9a54c5b5@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 12:00:31 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@...tonmail.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
masahiroy@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel version numbers after 4.9.255 and 4.4.255
On 04. 02. 21, 9:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> It might work somewhere, but there are a lot of (X * 65536 + Y * 256 + Z)
>> assumptions all around the world. So this doesn't look like a good idea.
>
> Ok, so what happens if we "wrap"? What will break with that? At first
> glance, I can't see anything as we keep the padding the same, and our
> build scripts seem to pick the number up from the Makefile and treat it
> like a string.
>
> It's only the crazy out-of-tree kernel stuff that wants to do minor
> version checks that might go boom. And frankly, I'm not all that
> concerned if they have problems :)
Agreed. But currently, sublevel won't "wrap", it will "overflow" to
patchlevel. And that might be a problem. So we might need to update the
header generation using e.g. "sublevel & 0xff" (wrap around) or
"sublevel > 255 : 255 : sublevel" (be monotonic and get stuck at 255).
In both LINUX_VERSION_CODE generation and KERNEL_VERSION proper.
thanks,
--
js
Powered by blists - more mailing lists