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]

Message-ID: <49E65117.7020309@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:26:47 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC:	devzero@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 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?

I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and
3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION".

To me it's a Nice to have but not Required.  (i.e., not worth it IMO)

-- 
~Randy
--
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/