Re: Doubt on KVM-88 vulnerabilities

[Asdo <asdo@shiftmail.org>]

Great, thanks for your reply!

All clear, except one thing, pls see --->

Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>
>> 2.6.31.5
>> 2.6.30
>> 2.6.30.1
>> 2.6.30-rc8
>> 2.6.30-rc6
>>
>> I don't undestand why they are numbered like the kernel, that's 
>> strange... More specifically, this is the question: If I have a 
>> kernel version N, what kvm-kmod can I compile in it? If I can just 
>> compile version N, then it's useless because that's identical to the 
>> kvm.ko I already had. Or can I compile kvm-kmod 2.6.31.5 in my kernel 
>> 2.6.24? That's a strange version numbering... why haven't you used 
>> the same numbering as for qemu-kvm?
> And besides, the versioning of kvm-kmod's are not obvious to me: I see 
> these ones at sourceforge:
>
> Because such numbering proved to be confusing, and you are confused by
> it too.  The above numbers means just like, kvm-kmod from kernel 2.6.30.1
> (say), but "ported" to a wider range of kernels.  kvm-kmod is being
> developed as part of kernel.
Ok so you mean I can indeed take kvm-kmod 2.6.31.5 and compile it 
against my older host kernel?
(except that the host kernel needs to be anyway >= 2.6.28 as you say below)
Did I understand correctly?

> Btw, 2.6.24 and in fact anything before ~2.6.28 might be problematic for
> real kvm usage, due to other parts of the kernel.  Applies to both
> host and guest kernels.

Thank you
Asdo