Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] modpost: Produce extended MODVERSIONS information

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:27 PM Lucas De Marchi
<lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 02:19:38PM -0800, Matthew Maurer wrote:
> >>
> >> > If booted against an old kernel, it will
> >> > behave as though there is no modversions information.
> >>
> >> Huh? This I don't get. If you have the new libkmod and boot
> >> an old kernel, that should just not break becauase well, long
> >> symbols were not ever supported properly anyway, so no regression.
> >
> >Specifically, if you set NO_BASIC_MODVERSIONS, build a module, and
>
> how are you setting NO_BASIC_MODVERSIONS and loading it in a kernel
> that still doesn't have that, i.e. before EXTENDED_MODVERSIONS?

That action would involve e.g. building a module against a 6.13 series
kernel with NO_BASIC_MODVERSIONS and trying insmod it on a 6.12 series
kernel. I know it's not supported, I was just trying to describe the
full matrix of what would happen differently with the proposed
additional config flag.

>
> Please Cc me on the format change and if possible submit the libkmod
> support.

It seems awkward to adjust kmod to support a format that still hasn't
been accepted to the kernel. I can send kmod patches to support it,
but since this patch series hasn't been accepted yet, it seemed a bit
premature.

I'll explicitly add you to the format change (patch before this in the
series) and add you to the whole series in v9

>
> thanks
> Lucas De Marchi
>
> >then load said module with a kernel *before* EXTENDED_MODVERSIONS
> >existed, it will see no modversion info on the module to check. This
> >will be true regardless of symbol length.
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure I understood your last comment here though,
> >> can you clarify what you meant?
> >>
> >> Anyway, so now that this is all cleared up, the next question I have
> >> is, let's compare a NO_BASIC_MODVERSIONS world now, given that the
> >> userspace requirements aren't large at all, what actual benefits does
> >> using this new extended mod versions have? Why wouldn't a distro end
> >> up preferring this for say a future release for all modules?
> >
> >I think a distro will end up preferring using this for all modules,
> >but was intending to put both in for a transitional period until the
> >new format was more accepted.
> >
> >>
> >>   Luis





[Index of Archives]     [Linux&nblp;USB Development]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Secrets]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux