Re: A proposal - binary

From: Zachary Amsden
Date: Thu Aug 03 2006 - 17:25:10 EST

Alan Cox wrote:
Ar Iau, 2006-08-03 am 22:29 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau:
I think that the issue Zach tried to cover is the current inability to
keep the same binary module across multiple kernel versions. That's why
he compared modules<->kernel to ELF<->glibc. In that sense, he's right.

I think thats why he's wrong.

The interface for a hypedvisor is

Kernel -> Something -> Hypedvisor

The kernel->something interface can change randomly by day of week, who
cares. A better analogy would be a device driver - we recompile device
drivers each kernel variant, which change their internal interfaces, we redesign their locking but we don't have to change the hardware.

Ditto talking to the hypedvisor. The ABI is the hypedvisor syscall/trap
interface not the kernel module interface. As such insmod is just fine.

Yes, the module issue is completely tangential. We would like to have the ability to load a hypervisor module at run-time, and this may be slightly nicer from a GPL point of view, by allowing us to publish a GPL module that interfaces to the kernel. But the Something layer really is more like firmware, and merely making a GPL'd module interface to it doesn't actually change the underlying legal / technical ramifications that Alan pointed out.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at