linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.9.256

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]

Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:57:07 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, lwn@....net,
        jslaby@...e.cz
Subject: Re: Linux 4.9.256

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:50:21PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>On 05/02/2021 16.26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>I'm announcing the release of the 4.9.256 kernel.
>>
>>This, and the 4.4.256 release are a little bit "different" than normal.
>>
>>This contains only 1 patch, just the version bump from .255 to .256 which ends
>>up causing the userspace-visable LINUX_VERSION_CODE to behave a bit differently
>>than normal due to the "overflow".
>>
>>With this release, KERNEL_VERSION(4, 9, 256) is the same as KERNEL_VERSION(4, 10, 0).
>
>
>I think this is a bad idea. Many kernel features can only be 
>discovered by checking the kernel version. If a feature was introduced 
>in 4.10, then an application can be tricked into thinking a 4.9 kernel 
>has it.
>
>
>IMO, better to stop LINUX_VERSION_CODE at 255 and introduce a 

In the upstream (and new -stable fix) we did this part.

>LINUX_VERSION_CODE_IMPROVED that has more bits for patchlevel.

Do you have a usecase where it's actually needed? i.e. userspace that
checks for -stable patchlevels?

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha