Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932974AbcLIIQO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 03:16:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:35324 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932645AbcLIIPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 03:15:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 18:14:59 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Stanislav Kozina Cc: Don Zickus , Linus Torvalds , Ben Hutchings , Michal Marek , Adam Borowski , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Debian kernel maintainers , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kbuild: enable modversions for symbols exported from asm Message-ID: <20161209181459.1f0a4fed@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <0937c184-1946-c494-56b6-c38fd0b632c2@redhat.com> References: <20161129135118.24696-1-kilobyte@angband.pl> <30bb2db4-47bd-0c35-8328-ef032b551f06@suse.com> <20161129195721.GI2697@decadent.org.uk> <20161201051852.28dc335f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20161201041325.GX35881@redhat.com> <20161201153215.43b6cec7@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20161201152039.GB35881@redhat.com> <20161209135041.5ff12770@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <0937c184-1946-c494-56b6-c38fd0b632c2@redhat.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 978 Lines: 22 On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 08:55:51 +0100 Stanislav Kozina wrote: > >> The question is how to provide a similar guarantee if a different way? > > As a tool to aid distro reviewers, modversions has some value, but the > > debug info parsing tools that have been mentioned in this thread seem > > superior (not that I've tested them). > > On the other hand the big advantage of modversions is that it also > verifies the checksum during runtime (module loading). In other words, I > believe that any other solution should still generate some form of > checksum/watermark which can be easily checked for compatibility on > module load. > It should not be hard to add to the DWARF based tools though. We'd just > parse DWARF data instead of the C code. A runtime check is still done, with per-module vermagic which distros can change when they bump the ABI version. Is it really necessary to have more than that (i.e., per-symbol versioning)? Thanks, Nick