Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 254575 - Stable sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.27-r2 newer than stable sys-kernel/hardened-sources-2.6.25-r11
Summary: Stable sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.27-r2 newer than stable sys-kernel/harden...
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Hardened (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High major (vote)
Assignee: The Gentoo Linux Hardened Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-01-11 19:40 UTC by Mike Nerone
Modified: 2009-03-28 15:44 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mike Nerone 2009-01-11 19:40:22 UTC 
I'm not positive on this one. Sorry for the noise if I'm wrong, but...

I'm running profile hardened/x86/2.6. The current stable linux-headers, 2.6.27-r2, is newer than the current stable hardened-sources, 2.6.25-r11. I haven't merged these yet, but isn't this bad. If I understand correctly from previous LKML posts, even by Linus himself, it's imperative that the software is *not* built against kernel headers that are newer than the running kernel, as they would likely attempt to access an ABI that is not yet supported by the running kernel.

Perhaps this situation has changed. If so, please enlighten me.
Comment 1 Gordon Malm (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2009-01-11 21:24:28 UTC 
Don't worry it is safe.  You can even rebuild glibc against linux-headers-2.6.27 and continue to run an older kernel.
Comment 2 Mike Nerone 2009-01-11 22:14:22 UTC 
Sorry for being paranoid, but the box I'm looking at currently is a remote headless server. A failure is incredibly inconvenient. Can you point me to some documentation on why this is safe or when things changed since posts like [ http://osdir.com/ml/linux.gentoo.server/2005-03/msg00097.html ]?
Comment 3 Mike Nerone 2009-01-12 00:01:53 UTC 
Sorry, I'm just reopening this bug hoping to get some attention to the followup question in comment #2.
Comment 4 Mike Nerone 2009-03-28 15:44:16 UTC 
Well, as there's been no further response, and the situation with the versions has now reversed anyway, I'll go ahead and switch this back to INVALID.