On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:14:45AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:53:29 +0100,
> Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:24:23AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:40:31 +0100,
> >> Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >I needed this patch from Russel King to load xfs again (without it the
> >> >module
> >> >loading put zeroes where support_init should be, causing a crash)
> >> >This was with modutils 2.3.14.
> >>
> >> The fact that Documentation/Changes requires modutils 2.3.18 for
> >> kernels >= 2.4.0-test10 has obviously escaped everybody's notice.
> >> You should be using modutils 2.3.21 anyway, to fix the local root
> >> exploit.
> >
> >The code in module.c was obviously wrong anyways though, otherwise
> >it would be rather useless to pass the structure size in.
>
> module.c was wrong but it only trips when you use old modutils on a
> current kernel. BTW, the patch was mine, not Russel King's. Russel
> reported the problem first with a patch but his patch was in the wrong
> place, I did the correct patch.
Sorry, I was told it was his patch.
>
> >I also do not care about local root exploits on my test machines.
>
> But you should care about upgrading according to Documentation/Changes.
> modutils 2.3.18 was required for kernel 2.4.0-test10, 2.3.14 is too
> old. Before introducing significant kernel changes I issue new
Thank you, 2.3.14 works fine for me so far with this patch.
I also do not remember reading an announcement of you about the binary
breakage on linux-kernel (Changes is useless for frequent kernel testers
because it contains to 95% unnecessary updates)
-Andi
|