Bug 3847 - linux kernel 3.0 will use two digit in uname instead of three digit
Summary: linux kernel 3.0 will use two digit in uname instead of three digit
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Busybox
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Other (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P5 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: unassigned
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-10 07:06 UTC by Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
Modified: 2011-09-16 11:40 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:

Attachments
proposed fix for the issue (609 bytes, patch)
2011-07-12 17:58 UTC, Michael Tokarev 		Details
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 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz 2011-06-10 07:06:45 UTC 
linux kernel 3.0 will use two digit in uname instead of three digit thus modutils/depmod.c check becomes invalid:

    if (*argv && sscanf(*argv, "%u.%u.%u", &tmp, &tmp, &tmp) == 3) {
        version = *argv++;
    } else {


Solution is to use:
   if (*argv && sscanf(*argv, "%u.%u", &tmp, &tmp) == 2) {
which should work for 2 and 3 digit versions.

Same fix was commited to module-init-tools.
Comment 1 Denys Vlasenko 2011-06-12 15:06:03 UTC 
> linux kernel 3.0 will use two digit in uname

Considering that this is a PITA for many similar code parts, I expect Linux kernel to return to three-digit numbering. Let's wait and see.
Comment 2 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz 2011-06-12 15:12:58 UTC 
This fix will work with both, 2 and 3 digit kernel versions.

It's unlikely Linus will return to 3 digits since he already merged few very hacky patches that workaround the problem with old depmods.
Comment 3 Denys Vlasenko 2011-06-12 19:37:37 UTC 
> It's unlikely Linus will return to 3 digits since he already merged few very
> hacky patches that workaround the problem with old depmods.

So, what next versions will be? 3.1, 3.2, 3.3? I don't think so.
Comment 4 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz 2011-06-12 20:11:42 UTC 
Exactly that. Linux releases 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 while stable team gets third digit - 3.0.0, 3.0.1 and so on.

https://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/3d41c0c994cd5313/44cadace5bbcea34?hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=linux+kernel+3.0rc1+linus+torvalds+group:linux.kernel

"I decided to just bite the bullet, and call the next version 3.0. It 
 will get released close enough to the 20-year mark, which is excuse 
 enough for me, although honestly, the real reason is just that I can 
 no longe rcomfortably count as high as 40.
...
 Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the 
 scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is 
 calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it 
 into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release 
 should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for 
 their versioning."
Comment 5 Michael Tokarev 2011-07-12 17:58:47 UTC 
Created attachment 3475 [details]
proposed fix for the issue

This change for libbb/kernel_version.c fixes the issue.

Signed-Off-By: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Comment 6 Denys Vlasenko 2011-09-16 11:31:45 UTC 
I tested current code on 3.1-rc4 and it seems to work fine.
Comment 7 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz 2011-09-16 11:40:24 UTC 
Only because Linus finally didn't make 2-digit version reporting in uname. Kernel 3.0 reports 3.0.0. I guess too many things broke and thus 3-digit version is reported.