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: <YBzrL/NS0vVeTe0/@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:52:31 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Christoph Biedl <linux-kernel.bfrz@...chmal.in-ulm.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel version numbers after 4.9.255 and 4.4.255

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:19:33PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> David Laight wrote...
> 
> > A full wrap might catch checks for less than (say) 4.4.2 which
> > might be present to avoid very early versions.
> > So sticking at 255 or wrapping onto (say) 128 to 255 might be better.
> 
> Hitting such version checks still might happen, though.

By who?  For what?

> Also, any wrapping introduces a real risk package managers will see
> version numbers running backwards and therefore will refrain from
> installing an actually newer version.

package managers do not take the version from this macro, do they?  If
they do, please show me which ones.

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ