On 09.12.2016 17:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 01:56:53AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:36:04 +0100 >> Stanislav Kozina <skozina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>>>>> The question is how to provide a similar guarantee if a different way? >>>>>> As a tool to aid distro reviewers, modversions has some value, but the >>>>>> debug info parsing tools that have been mentioned in this thread seem >>>>>> superior (not that I've tested them). >>>>> On the other hand the big advantage of modversions is that it also >>>>> verifies the checksum during runtime (module loading). In other words, I >>>>> believe that any other solution should still generate some form of >>>>> checksum/watermark which can be easily checked for compatibility on >>>>> module load. >>>>> It should not be hard to add to the DWARF based tools though. We'd just >>>>> parse DWARF data instead of the C code. >>>> A runtime check is still done, with per-module vermagic which distros >>>> can change when they bump the ABI version. Is it really necessary to >>>> have more than that (i.e., per-symbol versioning)? >>> >>> From my point of view, it is. We need to allow changing ABI for some >>> modules while maintaining it for others. >>> In fact I think that there should be version not only for every exported >>> symbol (in the EXPORT_SYMBOL() sense), but also for every public type >>> (in the sense of eg. structure defined in the public header file). >> >> Well the distro can just append _v2, _v3 to the name of the function >> or type if it has to break compat for some reason. Would that be enough? > > There are other ways that distros can work around when upstream "breaks" > the ABI, sometimes they can rename functions, and others they can > "preload" structures with padding in anticipation for when/if fields get > added to them. But that's all up to the distros, no need for us to > worry about that at all :) The _v2 and _v3 functions are probably the ones that also get used by future backports in the distro kernel itself and are probably the reason for the ABI change in the first place. Thus going down this route will basically require distros to touch every future backport patch and will in general generate a big mess internally. I think it is important to keep versioning information outside of the source code. Some kind of modversions will still be required, but distros should be able to decide if they put in some kind of checksum or a string, what suites them most. Thanks, Hannes (who is still impressed by the genksyms tools) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
