Re: Doubt on KVM-88 vulnerabilities

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

Asdo wrote:
> 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?
> 

Please see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/42256

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux