Re: ABI change in fix for CVE-2008-5029

2008-11-14 Thread dann frazier
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 04:14:41PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:23:22PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:29:05PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > > Because this affects a significant number of symbols, it doesn't look > > > to me like a safe thing

Re: ABI change in fix for CVE-2008-5029

2008-11-14 Thread dann frazier
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:23:22PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:29:05PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > Because this affects a significant number of symbols, it doesn't look > > to me like a safe thing to ignore w/ the #ifdef __GENKSYMS__ trick, so > > its looking like we

Re: ABI change in fix for CVE-2008-5029

2008-11-14 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:29 -0700, dann frazier wrote: > The fix for CVE-2008-5029[1], part of 2.6.26.8, changes the ABI. > We have verified that this issue affects the etch kernels as well and > I'm currently testing a backport for 2.6.18. > > Because this affects a significant number of symbols,

Re: ABI change in fix for CVE-2008-5029

2008-11-14 Thread Bastian Blank
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:29:05PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > Because this affects a significant number of symbols, it doesn't look > to me like a safe thing to ignore w/ the #ifdef __GENKSYMS__ trick, so > its looking like we need to increment the ABI for the stable kernels, > and perhaps the le

ABI change in fix for CVE-2008-5029

2008-11-14 Thread dann frazier
The fix for CVE-2008-5029[1], part of 2.6.26.8, changes the ABI. We have verified that this issue affects the etch kernels as well and I'm currently testing a backport for 2.6.18. Because this affects a significant number of symbols, it doesn't look to me like a safe thing to ignore w/ the #ifdef