Re: insmod module-loading errors, Linux-2.6.9

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 13:04 -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> linux-os wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:52:18 EST, linux-os said:
> >>
> >>> There are certainly work-arounds for problems that shouldn't
> >>> exist at all. So, every time I do something to a kernel, I
> >>> have to change whatever the EXTRAVERSION field is?  Then, when
> >>> a customer demands that the kernel version be exactly the
> >>> same that was shipped with Fedora or whatever, I'm screwed.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you didn't have the foresight to keep that kernel version around,
> >> there isn't much we can do to help you.  Yes, this may mean you have
> >> a big bunch of /usr/src/linux-2.6.* directories.
> >>
> > 
> > Wrong. Whoever put the module-loading code INSIDE the kernel,
> > for POLITICAL reasons, created a new POLICY.
> > 
> 
> No.  Version information is still stripped in module-init-tools in
> _userspace_ for modprobe --force.  The fact that insmod doesn't support
> '-f' is probably an oversight and Rusty would likely accept a patch.

Hmm, insmod is actually designed to be a minimal system call wrapper
(ie. most people probably shouldn't be using it).  However, it accepts
standard input and objcopy will happily strip sections out of a module.

Cheers,
Rusty.
-- 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman