On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:01 PM John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/02/2024 10:08, John Garry wrote:
> > On 05/02/2024 23:10, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >>>> I think what you can contribute are:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Explore the UTS_RELEASE users, and check if you can get rid of it.
> >>> Unfortunately I expect resistance for this. I also expect places like FW
> >>> loader it is necessary. And when this is used in sysfs, people will say
> >>> that it is part of the ABI now.
> >>>
> >>> How about I send the patch to update to use init_uts_ns and mention also
> >>> that it would be better to not use at all, if possible? I can cc you.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >>
> >> As I mentioned in the previous reply, the replacement is safe
> >> for builtin code.
> >>
> >> When you touch modular code, please pay a little more care,
> >> because UTS_RELEASE and init_utsname()->release
> >> may differ when CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y.
> >>
> >
> > Are you saying that we may have a different release version kernel and
> > module built with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y, and the module was using
> > UTS_RELEASE for something? That something may be like setting some info
> > in a sysfs file, like in this example:
> >
> > static ssize_t target_core_item_version_show(struct config_item *item,
> > char *page)
> > {
> > return sprintf(page, "Target Engine Core ConfigFS Infrastructure %s"
> > " on %s/%s on "UTS_RELEASE"\n", TARGET_CORE_VERSION,
> > utsname()->sysname, utsname()->machine);
> > }
> >
> > And the intention is to use the module codebase release version and not
> > the kernel codebase release version. Hence utsname() is used for
> > .sysname and .machine, but not .release .
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Can you comment on whether I am right about CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, above?
>
> Thanks,
> John
Your understanding about CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is correct.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
