From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: changeset: Make forced module loading optional
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:07:03 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805050957590.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805051535.05370.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
On Mon, 5 May 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> BTW, for the peanut gallery: I don't recommend modversions: it's not reliable
> in detecting all differences, nor being stable when there are no real
> differences.
Umm. modversions is in general a whole lot *more* reliable than just
looking at the kernel version.
The kernel version is pretty good if you use CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO and
have a git kernel tree, but if not, then modversions is much more likely
to stop modules across big infrastructure changes during (say) the merge
window.
So I agree that modversions is not "reliable", but I think that the
alternative is often even *less* reliable, so I find the "don't recommend
modversions" comment to be pretty debatable.
Since I personally try to avoid modules, and if I do use them I'd prefer
the checking to be as strict as possible, I'd really not mind a "strict"
mode that tests both MODVERSIONS _and_ the full kernel version string.
Along with not allowing forced module loads, of course.
I also find it sad that apparently I'm one of the few ones that test with
modules turned off. It's both more secure and simpler, but it does cause
lots of noise at least during a Fedora boot, and it occasionally breaks
the /etc/rc.d scripts because they assume that they have to load modules,
and that it's an error if that fails. We had that happen with the iptables
scripts not that long ago (and note how that was unrelated to initrd: this
is past the point when things have switched to the normal root
filesystem).
IOW, I wish distros did some testing with non-modular kernels too. Oh
well. At least I can generally fix the problems, and make error reports,
but I bet it means that most other kernel users simply turn on modules
whether they need them or not.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-05 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-05 4:55 changeset: Make forced module loading optional Rusty Russell
2008-05-05 5:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-05 5:35 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-05 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-05-05 18:42 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-05 19:47 ` David Miller
2008-05-05 6:43 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-05-05 14:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-05 14:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2008-05-05 15:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-05 15:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-05 15:32 ` Dave Jones
2008-05-05 15:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-05 16:01 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-05-05 15:57 ` Alan Cox
2008-05-05 6:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.1.10.0805050957590.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jonathan@jonmasters.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox