[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210205090659.GA22517@amd>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:06:59 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
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 Thu 2021-02-04 09:51:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 04. 02. 21, 7:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:59:42AM +0000, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > > > Greg,
> > > > I hope that your linux kernel release scripts are
> > > > implemented in a way that understands that PATCHLEVEL= and
> > > > SUBLEVEL= numbers in top-level linux Makefile are encoded
> > > > as 8-bit numbers for LINUX_VERSION_CODE and
> > > > KERNEL_VERSION() macros, and must stay in range 0...255.
> > > > These 8-bit limits are hardcoded in both kernel source and
> > > > userspace ABI.
> > > >
> > > > After 4.9.255 and 4.4.255, your scripts should be
> > > > incrementing a number in EXTRAVERSION= in top-level
> > > > linux Makefile.
> > >
> > > Should already be fixed in linux-next, right?
> >
> > I assume you mean:
> > commit 537896fabed11f8d9788886d1aacdb977213c7b3
> > Author: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > Date: Mon Jan 18 14:54:53 2021 -0500
> >
> > kbuild: give the SUBLEVEL more room in KERNEL_VERSION
> >
> > That would IMO break userspace as definition of kernel version has changed.
> > And that one is UAPI/ABI (see include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h) as
> > Jari writes. For example will glibc still work:
> > http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.ac;h=13abda0a51484c5951ffc6d718aa36b72f3a9429;hb=HEAD#l14
> >
> > ? Or gcc 10 (11 will have this differently):
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/bpf/bpf.c;hb=ee5c3db6c5b2c3332912fb4c9cfa2864569ebd9a#l165
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/config/bpf/bpf-helpers.h;hb=ee5c3db6c5b2c3332912fb4c9cfa2864569ebd9a#l53
>
> Ugh, I thought this was an internal representation, not an external one
> :(
>
> > 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 :)
>
> So, let's leave it alone and just see what happens!
Yeah, stable is a great place to do the experiments. Not that this is
the first time :-(.
Pavel
--
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists