linux-kernel - Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:21:38 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	devzero@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:15:50PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:11:46PM +0200, devzero@....de wrote:
> >> Hi, 
> >>
> >> some time ago i spotted that around 20% of the Linux modules lacking a MODULE_DESCRIPTION field.  ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10770 )
> >>
> >> I think it`s not a practicable approach to get this fixed by some single person digging trough all the modules. 
> >> If itŽs fixed for a kernel release, one year later there would be another bunch of new modules lacking the description field again.
> >>
> >> What about a build-time or run-time warning for missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION ? (as it exists for MODULE_LICENSE in modpost.c) 
> > 
> > 
> > You mean something like the following untested patch?
> > If it works what is the output for an allmodconfig build?
> > 
> > 	Sam
> > 
> > diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > index 8cc7061..5317d6f 100644
> > --- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > +++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > @@ -1553,6 +1553,7 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname)
> >  	const char *symname;
> >  	char *version;
> >  	char *license;
> > +	char *description;
> >  	struct module *mod;
> >  	struct elf_info info = { };
> >  	Elf_Sym *sym;
> > @@ -1584,6 +1585,11 @@ static void read_symbols(char *modname)
> >  		license = get_next_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len,
> >  					   "license", license);
> >  	}
> > +	description = get_modinfo(info.modinfo, info.modinfo_len, "description");
> > +	if (info.modinfo && !description && !is_vmlinux(modname))
> > +		warn("modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in %s\n"
> > +		     "see include/linux/module.h for "
> > +		     "more information\n", modname);
> >  
> >  	for (sym = info.symtab_start; sym < info.symtab_stop; sym++) {
> >  		symname = info.strtab + sym->st_name;
> > --
> 
> on x86_64 allmodconfig (2.6.30-rc2), here are the "missing"s that are reported:
> 
> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_explicit.o
> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs_example_macros.o
> WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.o
...
We need to bring that list down before we apply the patch.
Is it worth it?

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/