search

NICMx / Jool

SIIT and NAT64 for Linux
GNU General Public License v2.0
332 stars 66 forks source link

DKMS: Fix RHEL kernel version checks on 9.99 / 5.17 #380

Closed DasSkelett closed 2 years ago

DasSkelett commented 2 years ago

Problem

See #379, I encountered a bunch of kernel module build failures on Fedora 35 with 5.17 kernels.

They are all in places where there was a placeholder 9999 specified for the RHEL_MAJOR in the kernel version check.

Changes

Since at least kernel 5.16 the underlying kernel patches (e.g. the renaming of nf_reset to nf_reset_ct etc.) are also present in the Fedora 35 & 36 kernels. However the 5.16 series did not have RHEL_RELEASE_CODE and other RHEL_ veriables defined for whatever reason and the LINUX_VERSION_AT_LEAST/LINUX_VERSION_LOWER_THAN conditional helpers handled them as "stock" kernels. This made DKMS compilation still work.

The 5.17 kernels however do have RHEL_RELEASE_CODE defined again, thus the build fails because RHEL_MAJOR is 9, far from 9999.

Now the version checks are updated to AT_LEAST / LOWER_THAN (a, b, c, 9, 99).

This has only been tested with Fedora 35 5.16 and 5.17 kernels. I assume that the RHEL and CENTOS distros have the same set of backports/patches when marked as 9.99+.

x.99 seems to be the version code of the development tree before a stable RHEL x+1 drops, so I assume that 9.0-98 did not have these patches yet. But I find the Red Hat kernel versioning system really confusing, if someone knows more and I'm wrong please let me know.

Fixes #379

DasSkelett commented 2 years ago

I've backported this to my COPR package for Jool and tested it on another server (also F35 Linux 5.17) and it works there as well.

# dkms status
jool/4.1.8, 5.16.20-200.fc35.x86_64, x86_64: installed

# dnf update
...

# dkms build jool/4.1.8 -k 5.17.6-200.fc35.x86_64
...

# dkms install jool/4.1.8 -k 5.17.6-200.fc35.x86_64 
...

# dkms status
jool/4.1.8, 5.16.20-200.fc35.x86_64, x86_64: installed
jool/4.1.8, 5.17.6-200.fc35.x86_64, x86_64: installed

(Had to specify the kernel because it's currently booted with the 5.16 kernel to have a working Jool)

ydahhrk commented 2 years ago

Sorry this took so long. Everything looks OK; none of the supported kernels was negatively affected. Thank you for your work!