From: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Cc: mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kbuild, PCI: generic,versatile: comment out MODULE_LICENSE in non-modules Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:43:45 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87a61l1hum.fsf@esperi.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJ_VhesDZO336tw=KAp88jCLdW9C6y6QDkTF7WpLkr3+w@mail.gmail.com> (Rob Herring's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:36:16 -0600") On 10 Feb 2023, Rob Herring uttered the following: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:05 AM Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without >> Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations >> are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro >> in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing >> object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe >> might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message. > > How is there an issue when any given module could be built-in instead? "modprobe module-that-might-be-built-in" is always meant to succeed if the module is built-in; but "modprobe thing-that-can't-be-a-module-at-all" is meant to fail. e.g. on a system in which ext4 is built in, I see loom:~# modprobe ext4 loom:~# lsmod | grep ext4 (with either reporting any answer, and the modprobe returning exitcode 0). But trying to modprobe something that cannot be a module says, e.g. (sorry for old kernel, just happens to be what I can lay my hands on easily right now): loom:~# modprobe slab modprobe: FATAL: Module slab not found in directory /lib/modules/5.16.19-00037-ge8dfda4e77fb-dirty [exitcode nonzero] This is what is expected, even though slab is built in. It's not a module, it cannot be a module, so trying to modprobe it should fail. But right now we have things like this: silk:~# modprobe zswap [nothing, exitcode 0] zswap cannot be built as a module, so this output is wrong (and inconsistent with the slab attempt above). (Sure, this isn't exactly a disastrous consequence, but I have other things I'm going to contribute after this series that depend on this being got right consistently.) > The general trend is to make all PCI host drivers modules, the primary > reason this one, IIRC, is not a module is because it is missing > remove() hook to de-init the PCI bus. Not too hard to add, but I > wanted to do a common devm hook to do that instead of an explicit > .remove() hook in each driver. I suppose we could just ignore that and > allow building as a module. Unloading is optional anyways. That's perfectly acceptable for me -- I'm not saying that these things should not be modular, only that *as long as* they are not modular, they should not have a MODULE_LICENSE. Making it possible to build them as modules again is fine! -- NULL && (void)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Cc: mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kbuild, PCI: generic,versatile: comment out MODULE_LICENSE in non-modules Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:43:45 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87a61l1hum.fsf@esperi.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJ_VhesDZO336tw=KAp88jCLdW9C6y6QDkTF7WpLkr3+w@mail.gmail.com> (Rob Herring's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:36:16 -0600") On 10 Feb 2023, Rob Herring uttered the following: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:05 AM Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without >> Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations >> are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro >> in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing >> object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe >> might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message. > > How is there an issue when any given module could be built-in instead? "modprobe module-that-might-be-built-in" is always meant to succeed if the module is built-in; but "modprobe thing-that-can't-be-a-module-at-all" is meant to fail. e.g. on a system in which ext4 is built in, I see loom:~# modprobe ext4 loom:~# lsmod | grep ext4 (with either reporting any answer, and the modprobe returning exitcode 0). But trying to modprobe something that cannot be a module says, e.g. (sorry for old kernel, just happens to be what I can lay my hands on easily right now): loom:~# modprobe slab modprobe: FATAL: Module slab not found in directory /lib/modules/5.16.19-00037-ge8dfda4e77fb-dirty [exitcode nonzero] This is what is expected, even though slab is built in. It's not a module, it cannot be a module, so trying to modprobe it should fail. But right now we have things like this: silk:~# modprobe zswap [nothing, exitcode 0] zswap cannot be built as a module, so this output is wrong (and inconsistent with the slab attempt above). (Sure, this isn't exactly a disastrous consequence, but I have other things I'm going to contribute after this series that depend on this being got right consistently.) > The general trend is to make all PCI host drivers modules, the primary > reason this one, IIRC, is not a module is because it is missing > remove() hook to de-init the PCI bus. Not too hard to add, but I > wanted to do a common devm hook to do that instead of an explicit > .remove() hook in each driver. I suppose we could just ignore that and > allow building as a module. Unloading is optional anyways. That's perfectly acceptable for me -- I'm not saying that these things should not be modular, only that *as long as* they are not modular, they should not have a MODULE_LICENSE. Making it possible to build them as modules again is fine! -- NULL && (void) _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-10 18:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-02-10 16:47 [PATCH 0/8] MODULE_LICENSE removals, first tranche Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 1/8] kbuild, PCI: generic,versatile: comment out MODULE_LICENSE in non-modules Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 17:36 ` Rob Herring 2023-02-10 17:36 ` Rob Herring 2023-02-10 18:43 ` Nick Alcock [this message] 2023-02-10 18:43 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 22:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2023-02-13 22:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2023-02-14 15:41 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-14 15:41 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-14 17:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2023-02-14 17:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2023-02-16 13:34 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-16 13:34 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 2/8] kbuild, PCI: mobiveil: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 3/8] kbuild, ARM: tegra: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 4/8] kbuild, PCI: endpoint: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 5/8] kbuild, PCI: hip: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 6/8] kbuild, shpchp: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 7/8] kbuild, PCI: dwc: histb: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` [PATCH 8/8] kbuild, PCI: microchip: " Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 16:47 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 18:27 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-10 18:27 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-10 19:26 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 19:26 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-10 20:10 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-10 20:10 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-12 18:37 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-12 18:37 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-12 19:52 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-12 19:52 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 15:53 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 15:53 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 16:13 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 16:13 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 16:51 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-13 16:51 ` Conor Dooley 2023-02-13 17:06 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-13 17:06 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-15 19:06 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-15 19:06 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-13 17:30 ` Jonathan Corbet 2023-02-13 17:30 ` Jonathan Corbet 2023-02-13 19:23 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-13 19:23 ` Leon Romanovsky 2023-02-16 12:05 ` Nick Alcock 2023-02-16 12:05 ` Nick Alcock
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=87a61l1hum.fsf@esperi.org.uk \ --to=nick.alcock@oracle.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \ --cc=robh@kernel.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.