modprobe -l option not available

polch · 09-30-2012, 06:21 AM

Hi.

The "-l" option of modprobe isn't available anymore ? Is there any replacement ?

Regards.

Paul.

Didier Spaier · 09-30-2012, 06:45 AM

That's right. In the manual page of the version shipped in Slackware 13.37 we were warned:

Quote:

This option is provided for backwards compatibility and may go away in future

You could do something like this instead:

Code:

find /lib/modules/<kernel version>/ -type f -name "*ko"

EDIT You can replace <kernel version> with $(uname -r) or `uname -r` if you want to list the modules associated with the running kernel.

Eternal_Newbie · 09-30-2012, 09:00 AM

EDIT: Ignore this, it's wrong! (thanks Didier, for spotting the glaring error)

You could always use lsmod, that would be slightly more elegant than Didier's solution.

GNU/Linux · 09-30-2012, 10:21 AM

I've been using rc.firewall (from Projectfiles.com). So with Slackware 14 it spits out that error and I've decided to use 'lsmod' instead of lsmod -l in the line:

Code:

if (( `modprobe -l | grep -c "$MODULE"` )); then

I hope that's fine, but I do think that there are some other changes that came in with new kernel. So should I abandon the script and look somewhere else, since there might be other changes in iptables that are not available in the latest stable.

Anybody else still using the firewall from projectfiles?

Didier Spaier · 09-30-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal_Newbie

You could always use lsmod, that would be slightly more elegant than Didier's solution.

"lsmod" only list loaded modules. Instead, "modprobe -l" (did) list all modules, be they loaded or not and the solution I proposed do the same. So they are not equivalent.

polch · 10-01-2012, 01:45 AM

Thank you.

I didn't notice the warning in the manual of the 13.37.

Thank for the tip.

Didier Spaier · 10-01-2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GNU/Linux

I've been using rc.firewall (from Projectfiles.com). So with Slackware 14 it spits out that error and I've decided to use 'lsmod' instead of lsmod -l in the line:

Code:

if (( `modprobe -l | grep -c "$MODULE"` )); then

I hope that's fine

No, that's not fine.

I suppose you are thinking about making the replacement in this code snippet (from line #1189):

Code:

  for MODULE in $REQUIRED_MODULES; do
    if (( `modprobe -l | grep -c "$MODULE"` )); then
      modprobe $MODULE > /dev/null 2>&1
    fi
  done

So replacing "modprobe -l" with "lsmod" would have the effect of only loading modules that are already loaded, which was certainly not intended by the author.

Furthermore as the script date back 2006 the list of modules in $REQUIRED_MODULES should most probably be updated.

I would suggest you try the Easy Firewall Generator for IPTables from Alien Bob instead.

Eternal_Newbie · 10-01-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier

"lsmod" only list loaded modules. Instead, "modprobe -l" (did) list all modules, be they loaded or not and the solution I proposed do the same. So they are not equivalent.

Thanks for catching my mistake. I wonder why they got rid of modprobe -l when there is obviously a need for it?

Didier Spaier · 10-01-2012, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal_Newbie

I wonder why they got rid of modprobe -l when there is obviously a need for it?

Because it's easy enough to replace with a "find" command, as shown above. In previous "man modprobe" it was suggested to use "find" and "basename" instead. Let's do that (I suppose you want to list only the modules' names, without their paths):

Code:

for i in $(find /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/ -type f -name "*ko"); do basename $i; done

Proposing a simpler solution is left as an exercise .

EDIT Nostalgia? Add following line to your ~/.bashrc

Code:

alias ls-l='for i in $(find /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/ -type f -name "*ko"); do basename $i; done'

Then fire up a terminal and type:

Code:

ls-l

FeyFre · 10-01-2012, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Because it's easy enough to replace with a "find" command, as shown above. In previous "man modprobe" it was suggested to use "find" and "basename" instead. Let's do that:

So instead of simple spawning "modporbe -l" from my C code I forced to spawn shell(which can be absent)? I don't think I shall like it.

Didier Spaier · 10-01-2012, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyFre

So instead of simple spawning "modporbe -l" from my C code I forced to spawn shell(which can be absent)? I don't think I shall like it.

I assume that you will easily replace the shell command by a subroutine written in C.