On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:01 PM John Garry [off-list ref] wrote:

On 08/02/2024 10:08, John Garry wrote:

quoted

On 05/02/2024 23:10, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I think what you can contribute are:

   - Explore the UTS_RELEASE users, and check if you can get rid of it.

Unfortunately I expect resistance for this. I also expect places like FW
loader it is necessary. And when this is used in sysfs, people will say
that it is part of the ABI now.

How about I send the patch to update to use init_uts_ns and mention also
that it would be better to not use at all, if possible? I can cc you.

OK.


As I mentioned in the previous reply, the replacement is safe
for builtin code.

When you touch modular code, please pay a little more care,
because UTS_RELEASE and init_utsname()->release
may differ when CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y.

Are you saying that we may have a different release version kernel and
module built with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y, and the module was using
UTS_RELEASE for something? That something may be like setting some info
in a sysfs file, like in this example:

static ssize_t target_core_item_version_show(struct config_item *item,
         char *page)
{
     return sprintf(page, "Target Engine Core ConfigFS Infrastructure %s"
         " on %s/%s on "UTS_RELEASE"\n", TARGET_CORE_VERSION,
         utsname()->sysname, utsname()->machine);
}

And the intention is to use the module codebase release version and not
the kernel codebase release version. Hence utsname() is used for
.sysname and .machine, but not .release .

Hi Masahiro,

Can you comment on whether I am right about CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, above?

Thanks,
John

Your understanding about CONFIG_MODVERSIONS is correct.




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada