lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:04:32 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> To: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com, fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/16] s390/vfio-ap: add version vfio_ap module On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:56:01 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote: > Let's set a version for the vfio_ap module so that automated regression > tests can determine whether dynamic configuration tests can be run or > not. > > Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c > index be2520cc010b..f4ceb380dd61 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c > @@ -17,10 +17,12 @@ > > #define VFIO_AP_ROOT_NAME "vfio_ap" > #define VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME "matrix" > +#define VFIO_AP_MODULE_VERSION "1.2.0" > > MODULE_AUTHOR("IBM Corporation"); > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("VFIO AP device driver, Copyright IBM Corp. 2018"); > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > +MODULE_VERSION(VFIO_AP_MODULE_VERSION); > > static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv; > Setting a version manually has some drawbacks: - tools wanting to check for capabilities need to keep track which versions support which features - you need to remember to actually bump the version when adding a new, visible feature (- selective downstream backports may get into a pickle, but that's arguably not your problem) Is there no way for a tool to figure out whether this is supported? E.g., via existence of a sysfs file, or via a known error that will occur. If not, it's maybe better to expose known capabilities via a generic interface.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists