On 1/26/20 11:41 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 10:56:17AM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
On 1/23/20 5:05 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
From: Leon Romanovsky<leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In order to stop useless driver version bumps and unify output
presented by ethtool -i, let's overwrite the version string.
Before this change:
[leonro@erver ~]$ ethtool -i eth0
driver: virtio_net
version: 1.0.0
After this change:
[leonro@server ~]$ ethtool -i eth0
driver: virtio_net
version: 5.5.0-rc6+
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky<leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
I wanted to change to VERMAGIC_STRING, but the output doesn't
look pleasant to my taste and on my system is truncated to be
"version: 5.5.0-rc6+ SMP mod_unload modve".
After this patch, we can drop all those version assignments
from the drivers.
Inspired by nfp and hns code.
---
net/core/ethtool.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c
index cd9bc67381b2..3c6fb13a78bf 100644
--- a/net/core/ethtool.c
+++ b/net/core/ethtool.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
#include <linux/phy.h>
#include <linux/bitops.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <linux/vermagic.h>
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
#include <linux/sfp.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
@@ -776,6 +777,8 @@ static noinline_for_stack int ethtool_get_drvinfo(struct net_device *dev,
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
+ strlcpy(info.version, UTS_RELEASE, sizeof(info.version));
+
/*
* this method of obtaining string set info is deprecated;
* Use ETHTOOL_GSSET_INFO instead.
--
2.20.1
First of all, although I've seen some of the arguments about distros and
their backporting, I still believe that the driver version number is
useful. In most cases it at least gets us in the ballpark of what
generation the driver happens to be and is still useful. I'd really prefer
that it is just left alone for the device manufactures and their support
folks to deal with.
Fine, I'm sure I lose that argument since there's already been plenty of
discussion about it.
Meanwhile, there is some non-zero number of support scripts and processes,
possibly internal testing chains, that use that driver/vendor specific
version information and will be broken by this change. Small number? Large
number? I don't know, but we're breaking them.
Sure, I probably easily lose that argument too, but it still should be
stated.
This will end up affecting out-of-tree drivers as well, where it is useful
to know what the version number is, most especially since it is different
from what the kernel provided driver is. How else are we to get this
information out to the user? If this feature gets squashed, we'll end up
having to abuse some other mechanism so we can get the live information from
the driver, and probably each vendor will find a different way to sneak it
out, giving us more chaos than where we started. At least the ethtool
version field is a known and consistent place for the version info.
Of course, out-of-tree drivers are not first class citizens, so I probably
lose that argument as well.
So if you are so all fired up about not allowing the drivers to report their
own version number, then why report anything at all? Maybe just report a
blank field. As some have said, the uname info is already available else
where, why are we sticking it here?
Personally, I think this is a rather arbitrary, heavy handed and unnecessary
slam on the drivers, and will make support more difficult in the long run.
The thing is that leaving this field as empty, for sure will break all
applications. I have a feeling that it can be close to 100% hit rate.
So, kernel version was chosen as an option, because it is already
successfully in use by at least two drivers (nfp and hns).
I'm glad that works for those drivers.
Leaving to deal with driver version to vendors is not an option too,
because they prove for more than once that they are not capable to
define user visible interfaces. It comes due to their natural believe
that their company is alone in the world and user visible interface
should be suitable for them only.
So you want to remove the one reliable place to put some information we
find useful, thus forcing us to come up with creative new places to put
it? Shall we remove the firmware version number as well when we start
abusing it by adding driver version information?
There has been a lot of work over the years to try to corral and unify
various bits of information so that everyone can access it the same way,
and now you're trying to remove one of those methods. This will only
force driver writers to get "creative" on how to get the info they need
out to the user.
It is already impossible for users to distinguish properly versions
of different vendors, because they use arbitrary strings with some
numbers.
Shall we also fix it so those pesky distros can't add their own
arbitrary version numbers to the kernel?
Again, I think you are trying to remove a useful bit of information.
Just because it isn't useful to you doesn't mean it is useless to others.
sln
