Am Son, 2003-12-21 um 14.45 schrieb GCS: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm currently running a heavily patched 2.4.22 kernel on my P4 system. > > Since upgrading to 2.4.23 would be a lot of work due to all the patches > > required to get my hardware working, i thought i would give 2.6.0-final > > a try (which doesn't need *any* additional patches). > Do you really want to upgrade your kernel? 2.6.0 still has too much > race-conditions that users can exploit.
The race-conditions aren't an issue for me, i think. This is my private machine and the only danger would be beeing h4x0r3d over the internet > > Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck > > on an ext3 encrypted cryptoloop file > 2.6.0 has far too many issues with loopback. Thus you don't want this > and loopback at the same time. If you really want to experience with > this stuff, then go back to test11 and apply the -mm patchset, as that > has fixes for this (also, check if it's upgraded to the final 2.6.0). Ugh. So loopback is known to have problems in 2.6.0. I didn't know that, thanks for the info. > > (i did *not* try to e2fsck an > > unencrypted > > file system > It works on three of my machines (the others have 2.4.x) for months now > (switched around 2.5.74?). > > > because 2.6.0-test11 managed to _corrupt_ [yes, > > reproducibly] an encrypted one). > Sure, but that's an encryted one. Well i didn't dare to mess with a valuable partition. I really would *hate* it to reinstall because of that. I have of course backups of all important files but not a complete image. > > > I found that cryptoloop in 2.6.0 wouldn't mount the encrypted file at > > all but 2.6.0-test11 did. However -test11 corrupted the file so maybe > > the feature has been disabled? > Don't know that. As someone wrote: check http://bugme.osdl.org/ > > > OS: Debian Woody (lots of upgrades) > Any reason not upgrading into Sarge then? Sarge is pretty good, maybe > even better than your Woody right now. Yeah, well. I don't want to mess up a perfectly working system. Maybe my next install will be testing or SID. > My advise is: stuck with 2.4.22. If it's working, then all good, why > doing risky upgrading? The main reason for me to upgrade to 2.6 is the local root bug in 2.4.22. As i understand it, it can be used to crack a system after remotely hacking, say SSH. Also the increased performance of 2.6 is really nice. And of course applying up to 6 (i think) patches to a vanilla 2.4 kernel to get my hardware working is kinda annoying, too. Thanks for your reply and a happy new year :) -- Matthias Hentges Cologne / Germany [www.hentges.net] -> PGP welcome, HTML tolerated ICQ: 97 26 97 4 -> No files, no URL's My OS: Debian Woody. Geek by Nature, Linux by Choice -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
