Re: [PATCH] x86/kbuild: enable modversions for symbols exported from asm

Nicholas Piggin
2016-11-24T07:53:39Z

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 08:36:39 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:20:26PM +1100, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > But still, modversions is pretty complicated for what it gives us. It sends
> > preprocessed C into a C parser that makes CRCs using type definitions of
> > exported symbols, then turns those CRCs into a linker script which which is
> > used to link the .o file with. What we get in return is a quite limited and
> > symbol "versioning" system.
> >
> > What if we ripped all that out and just attached an explicit version to
> > each export, and incompatible changes require an increment?
>
> How would that work for structures? Would that be required for every
> EXPORT_SYMBOL* somehow?

Yeah just have EXPORT_SYMBOL take another parameter which attaches a version
number and use that as the value for the __crc_ symbol versions rather than
a calculated CRC.

Yes it would require some level of care from developers and may be a small
annoyance when changing exports. But making people think a tiny bit more
before chnaging exported ABI shouldn't be the end of the world.

>
> > Google tells me
> > Linus is not a neutral bystander on the topic of symbol versioning, so I'm
> > bracing for a robust response :) (actually I don't much care either way, I'm
> > happy to put a couple of bandaids on it and keep it going)
>
> There are tools that people are working on to make it more obvious where
> API breaks happen by looking at the .o debug data instead of our crazy
> current system (which is really better than nothing), perhaps we should
> start using them instead?
>
> See here for more details about this:
> https://kernel-recipes.org/en/2016/talks/would-an-abi-changes-visualization-tool-be-useful-to-linux-kernel-maintenance/

Hmm. I guess it's basically similar to modversions, so has downsides of not
detecting a semantic change unless it changes the type. But still, if we could
replace our custom code with a tool like this for modversions functionality,
that alone would be a massive improvement. But requiring debug info might be
a bit of a show stopper. I also don't know if that would handle asm functions.

Thanks,
Nick