linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <671646821@web.de>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:11:46 +0200
From:	devzero@....de
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

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) 

Wouldn`t that solve the "problem" automatically as time goes by ?

regards
Roland

____________________________________________________________________
Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123

--
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/