linux-kernel - Re: Change in kernel debian packages between -rc2 and -rc3

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: <87pm8utzoo.fsf@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:34:47 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change in kernel debian packages between -rc2 and -rc3

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:

> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 12:39:44PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> 
>> I am afraid you are completely misunderstanding the two versions,
>> the ABI version and the package version.
>> 
>> They do not need to match. Actually, they do not match.
>> 
>> See real Debian (or Ubuntu) systems.
>> 
>> `uname -r` returns '5.10.0-21-amd64'.
>> This is what they call the ABI version, and
>> this is contained as a part of the package name,
>> 'linux-image-5.10.0-21-amd64'
>
> That may be a convention that Debian uses, but I'll point out that
> trying to use this as an ABI version when people are using different
> .config's is not going to end well.  That's because many different
> Kernel configurations will end up making incompatible changes to the
> ABI.  and only works if you are ***super*** careful about not making
> any kind of changes (e.g., the number of CPU's, adding or changing
> various cgroup controllers, all of which will make incompatible kernel
> ABI changes.)
>
> This is "Stable ABI nonsense" is well, nonsense.
>
>> It was _not_ reflected in the package version.
>> This is also correct since the package version
>> is not meant to reflect such user configuration
>> as CONFIG_LOCALVERSION.
>
> Citation, please?  Does the Debian system work in that particular way?
>
> In any case, it's an incompatible regression made during rc2 and rc3,
> which I think is at the very least, unfortunate.

v6.3-rc3 also broke my deb install scripts, so definitely not cool
breaking it like this. Please keep the deb names stable.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches