netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] vhost/vsock: specify module version

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ib52jo3gqsdmr23lpmsipytbxhecwvmjbjlgiw5ygwlbwletlu@rvuyibtxezwl>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:42:47 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, stefanha@...hat.com, 
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, 
	Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vhost/vsock: specify module version

Hi Aleksandr,

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:43:36PM GMT, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:27 PM Stefano Garzarella 
><sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 08:21:03PM GMT, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
>> >Add an explicit MODULE_VERSION("0.0.1") specification for the vhost_vsock module.
>> >
>> >It is useful because it allows userspace to check if vhost_vsock is there when it is
>> >configured as a built-in.
>> >
>> >This is what we have *without* this change and when vhost_vsock is 
>> >configured
>> >as a module and loaded:
>> >
>> >$ ls -la /sys/module/vhost_vsock
>> >total 0
>> >drwxr-xr-x   5 root root    0 Sep 29 19:00 .
>> >drwxr-xr-x 337 root root    0 Sep 29 18:59 ..
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 coresize
>> >drwxr-xr-x   2 root root    0 Sep 29 20:05 holders
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 initsize
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 initstate
>> >drwxr-xr-x   2 root root    0 Sep 29 20:05 notes
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 refcnt
>> >drwxr-xr-x   2 root root    0 Sep 29 20:05 sections
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 srcversion
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 20:05 taint
>> >--w-------   1 root root 4096 Sep 29 19:00 uevent
>> >
>> >When vhost_vsock is configured as a built-in there is *no* /sys/module/vhost_vsock directory at all.
>> >And this looks like an inconsistency.
>> >
>> >With this change, when vhost_vsock is configured as a built-in we get:
>> >$ ls -la /sys/module/vhost_vsock/
>> >total 0
>> >drwxr-xr-x   2 root root    0 Sep 26 15:59 .
>> >drwxr-xr-x 100 root root    0 Sep 26 15:59 ..
>> >--w-------   1 root root 4096 Sep 26 15:59 uevent
>> >-r--r--r--   1 root root 4096 Sep 26 15:59 version
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>
>> >---
>> > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 1 +
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >index 802153e23073..287ea8e480b5 100644
>> >--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> >@@ -956,6 +956,7 @@ static void __exit vhost_vsock_exit(void)
>> >
>> > module_init(vhost_vsock_init);
>> > module_exit(vhost_vsock_exit);
>> >+MODULE_VERSION("0.0.1");
>
>Hi Stefano,
>
>>
>> I was looking at other commits to see how versioning is handled in order
>> to make sense (e.g. using the same version of the kernel), and I saw
>> many commits that are removing MODULE_VERSION because they say it
>> doesn't make sense in in-tree modules.
>
>Yeah, I agree absolutely. I guess that's why all vhost modules have
>had version 0.0.1 for years now
>and there is no reason to increment version numbers at all.

Yeah, I see.

>
>My proposal is not about version itself, having MODULE_VERSION
>specified is a hack which
>makes a built-in module appear in /sys/modules/ directory.

Hmm, should we base a kind of UAPI on a hack?

I don't want to block this change, but I just wonder why many modules 
are removing MODULE_VERSION and we are adding it instead.

>
>I spent some time reading the code in kernel/params.c and
>kernel/module/sysfs.c to figure out
>why there is no /sys/module/vhost_vsock directory when vhost_vsock is
>built-in. And figured out the
>precise conditions which must be satisfied to have a module listed in
>/sys/module.
>
>To be more precise, built-in module X appears in /sys/module/X if one
>of two conditions are met:
>- module has MODULE_VERSION declared
>- module has any parameter declared

At this point my question is, should we solve the problem higher and 
show all the modules in /sys/modules, either way?

Your use case makes sense to me, so that we could try something like 
that, but obviously it requires more work I think.

Again, I don't want to block this patch, but I'd like to see if there's 
a better way than this hack :-)

Thanks,
Stefano

>
>Then I found "module: show version information for built-in modules in sysfs":
>https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/e94965ed5beb23c6fabf7ed31f625e66d7ff28de
>and it inspired me to make this minimalistic change.
>
>>
>> In particular the interesting thing is from nfp, where
>> `MODULE_VERSION(UTS_RELEASE);` was added with this commit:
>>
>> 1a5e8e350005 ("nfp: populate MODULE_VERSION")
>>
>> And then removed completely with this commit:
>>
>> b4f37219813f ("net/nfp: Update driver to use global kernel version")
>>
>> CCing Jakub since he was involved, so maybe he can give us some
>> pointers.
>
>Kind regards,
>Alex
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stefano
>>
>> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>> > MODULE_AUTHOR("Asias He");
>> > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("vhost transport for vsock ");
>> >--
>> >2.34.1
>> >
>>
>