When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
currently says:
Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols
I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear.
Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod
2.4.12 will say
Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
Keith Owens writes:
> When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
> currently says:
>
> Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols
>
> I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear.
> Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod
> 2.4.12 will say
>
> Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
> and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
> GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
> user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
>
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
How about actually checking if the unresolved symbols are available in
the GPLONLY area? That would allow you to be more precise.
[Perhaps this has already been suggested: I haven't been paying
attention]
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: [email protected]
Current: [email protected]
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:01:19 -0700,
Richard Gooch <[email protected]> wrote:
>How about actually checking if the unresolved symbols are available in
>the GPLONLY area? That would allow you to be more precise.
I would have to check for all the permutations between module and
kernel. With and without symbol versions, with and without gplonly,
with and without ppc64 function descriptor renaming, with and without
ia64 function descriptor renaming, ...
Given the current modutils code, that is just too messy. The code was
written for a single set of names and it has been hacked since then,
with special cases added onto special cases. The symbol handling needs
a complete rewrite, which will occur in modutils 2.5. In modutils 2.4
I just ignore the gplonly symbols during symbol import unless the
module is gpl licenced. Simpler, if less precise. Since it only
affects BOMs, I don't really care that much about precise error
messages.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:50:09PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
> currently says:
>
> Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols
I think you should point them towards lkml FAQ section and say that GPLONLY
symbols are rarely used but also a possible problem.
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 09:50 , Keith Owens wrote:
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
Make something idiot-proof and the universe will create a better idiot.
Keith Owens wrote:
> When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
> currently says:
>
> Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols
>
> I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear.
> Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod
> 2.4.12 will say
>
> Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
> and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
> GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
> user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
>
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
How about 'Error: unresolved symbols (incorrect module/kernel version?)'
It's pointless to state the license type if all symbols can't be resolved.
--
Skip ID: 0x7EDDDB0A
Keith,
--On Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:50 PM +1100 Keith Owens <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
> and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
> GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
> user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
>
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
Yes I think it can be misunderstood, and, perhaps more importantly, still
points the user at GPLONLY when it's more likely to be a straightforward
version mismatch. Better might be:
Hint: You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols. These
symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel (perhaps
you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY,
(in which case they will not be available to your module which does
not carry a GPL compatible license). In either case, contact
the module supplier for assistance.
--
Alex Bligh
It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly "Alex Bligh - linux-kernel" <[email protected]> began to type:
> Keith,
>
> --On Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:50 PM +1100 Keith Owens <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
> > and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
> > GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
> > user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
> >
> > Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> > with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
>
> Yes I think it can be misunderstood, and, perhaps more importantly, still
> points the user at GPLONLY when it's more likely to be a straightforward
> version mismatch. Better might be:
>
> Hint: You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols. These
> symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel (perhaps
> you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY,
> (in which case they will not be available to your module which does
> not carry a GPL compatible license). In either case, contact
> the *only* module supplier for assistance; no one else can help you.
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
Tommy Reynolds | mailto: <[email protected]>
Red Hat, Inc., Embedded Development Services | Phone: +1.256.704.9286
307 Wynn Drive NW, Huntsville, AL 35805 USA | FAX: +1.256.837.3839
Senior Software Developer | Mobile: +1.919.641.2923
--On Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:34 AM -0600 Tommy Reynolds
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In either case, contact
>> the *only* module supplier for assistance; no one else can help
>> you.
Well they might be able to help themselves by recompiling (for
instance a BSD with advertising module) - this happens for
instance when functions become #define's and so forth - so
if you want full detail, at risk of #include <warandpeace.h>:
For modules without a GPL license:
You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols. These
symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel (perhaps
you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY,
(in which case they will not be available to your module which does
not carry a GPL compatible license). You may be able to fix
this by recompiling the module against your current kernel's source;
if this doesn't work, or you don't have module source code,
contact *only* the module supplier for assistance; no one else
can help you.
And the alternative version if the module DOES have a GPL license:
You are trying to load a GPL licensed module which has unresolved
symbols. These symbols may not be exported by this version of the
kernel (perhaps you have a version mismatch). You may be able to fix
this by obtaining the source code for the module, and recompiling it
against your current kernel's source.
--
Alex Bligh
hi,
i did not wrote much to this list yet, but i have a suggestion to this
hint:
> > Hint: You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols.
These
> > symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel
(perhaps
> > you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY,
> > (in which case they will not be available to your module which
does
> > not carry a GPL compatible license). In either case, contact
> > the *only* module supplier for assistance; no one else can
help you.
> ^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
when i read the last sentence i had the feeling of a bad taste,
just because is sounds just like 'the evil module supplier (which
might just not have recompiled his modules yet) is responsible
for all and everything'.
well, it sounds like that for me.
what's with this:
To avoid further problems please contact the module supplier as he can
help you best.
so the whole hint would look like:
Hint: You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols.
These
symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel (perhaps
you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY,
(in which case they will not be available to your module which
does
not carry a GPL compatible license).
To avoid further problems please contact the module supplier as
he can
help you best.
that is - i think - a bit more polite and perhaps it helps to prevent
mails like 'your damn module causes serious errors with the actual
kernel.
can't you program like you ought to program'. at least that mails
will be more polite too.
bye,
sascha
Hi Keith.
>> How about actually checking if the unresolved symbols are available
>> in the GPLONLY area? That would allow you to be more precise.
> I would have to check for all the permutations between module and
> kernel. With and without symbol versions, with and without gplonly,
> with and without ppc64 function descriptor renaming, with and
> without ia64 function descriptor renaming, ...
>
> Given the current modutils code, that is just too messy. The code
> was written for a single set of names and it has been hacked since
> then, with special cases added onto special cases. The symbol
> handling needs a complete rewrite, which will occur in modutils 2.5.
> In modutils 2.4 I just ignore the gplonly symbols during symbol
> import unless the module is gpl licenced. Simpler, if less precise.
> Since it only affects BOMs, I don't really care that much about
> precise error messages.
Rather than ignore them, set a flag if you see any of them, then make
the message depend on whether the said flag is set or not.
Best wishes from Riley.
Hi Keith.
> When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
> currently says:
>> Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_
>> symbols
> I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not
> clear. Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a
> message. insmod 2.4.12 will say
> Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible
> license and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be
^^^
Gramattically, "This" is better there.
> trying to access GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more
> likely to be a coding or user error. Contact the module
> supplier for assistance.
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
Can I suggest the following wording instead:
Q> HINT: You are trying to load a module with unresolved symbols
Q> that does not have a GPL compatible licence. This module
Q> may be trying to access GPLONLY symbols in the kernel,
Q> but it is more likely to be one of the following:
Q>
Q> a. The module was compiled against a kernel other than
Q> the current (`uname -r`) kernel.
Q>
Q> b. The author of the module has made a coding error.
Q>
Q> Please contact the module supplier for assistance.
Drop the output from `uname -r` in the place indicated, and there should
be little for the luser to complain about.
Also, if there is any means for modutils to determine whether the
current kernel has any CPLONLY symbols in it, and remove the bit about
GPLONLY symbols if there aren't any.
Best wishes from Riley.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:39:33AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 09:50 , Keith Owens wrote:
>
> >Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> >with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
>
> Make something idiot-proof and the universe will create a better idiot.
>
Somebody would have to be *trying* to be an idiot with this new message...
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:50:09PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it
> currently says:
>
> Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols
>
> I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear.
> Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod
> 2.4.12 will say
>
> Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license
and it has unresolved symbols. This is probably due to a
coding or configuration problem. Contact the module supplier
for assistance.
Since the attempt by an non-GPL module to use GPLONLY sysbols is a
coding error IMHO, this message is clearer and avoids the confusion we
have been seeing.
> and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access
> GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or
> user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.
>
> Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody
> with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Keith Owens said:
> I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear.
> Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod
Would it not be more productive to have a one-line notice with a
tech-note number or reference to real documentation? Then the user can
type "man gplonly" or "less /usr/src/linux/Documentation/gplonly.txt"
for the real scoop on all of the error possibilities.
Mind you, on this list, it could be just as controversial picking a
name for the text file.
--
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed Ltd.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Somebody would have to be *trying* to be an idiot with this new message...
The problem with most idiots, however, is that they don't *have* to try.
:)
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------