Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:21:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Koert van der Veer <koert@cloudvps.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI stability for loadable modules Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1510281920020.26829@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAHRLrwNcLPrztuVvhrRj3Ya=Aw-5eDMRGD=L0wwVzfmPgQXwCQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHRLrwNcLPrztuVvhrRj3Ya=Aw-5eDMRGD=L0wwVzfmPgQXwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Koert van der Veer wrote: > TL;DR: Can I safely load a kernel module compiled against a slightly > different kernel? > > > I maintain a fleet of FreeBSD machines. We've encountered a problem with > one of the modules (iscsi doesn't allow passwords > 16 chars). I've > determined that patching the module solves the problem for us, and doesn't > affect any other kernel component. I'd like to distribute the patched > module and user-space components. My use-case allows me to unload the iscsi > module, but doesn't allow me to reboot the machine. > > > However, we're running an array of different kernels (10.0-RELEASE, > 10.0-RELEASE-p9, 10.0-STABLE, 10.1-RELEASE, 10.1-RELEASE-p6). I'd like to > minimize the number of distinct binaries being distributed, so preferably > I'd compile only one or two. My preliminary tests on VMs show me that this > does not cause any immediate problems. Is this actually safe, or do I need > to make distinct sets of binaries for each minor version and patchlevel of > kernel in production? Kernel ABI stability is guaranteed(*) within a major release branch. -Ben (*) there are occasional exceptions involving portions of the network stack, but 10.x is probably better than 9.x in this regard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1510281920020.26829>