linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: validate MODULE

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: <20150407195548.GA19186@sonymobile.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:55:49 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: validate MODULE_LICENSE content

On Tue 07 Apr 12:48 PDT 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 12:37 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > There is a well defined list of expected values for MODULE_LICENSE so
> > warn the user upon usage of unknown values.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Thanks for the review Joe!
> 
> No charge.
> 
> > "Proprietary" is in the list because this is the full list of "valid" values
> > mentioned in include/linux/module.h. So it's the list of licenses valid for
> > submission, but rather the list of valid values.
> 
> So the "Proprietary" entry is only for non kernel-tree uses.
> I wonder if the kernel checkpatch script should account for that.
> 

The way I read the comment in module.h is that if you're writing a
non-free kernel module then you should mark it with "Proprietary".

If people doing so are using checkpatch that's great, but it's just
included for completeness, not to argue about the concept of proprietary
kernel modules.

> I've no strong opinion though if Andrew wants to accept this as-is.
> 

Let me know and I'll drop it from the patch.

> cheers, Joe
> 

Thanks,
Bjorn

> > Changes since v1:
> > - Fixed nits pointed out by Joe
> > - Added comment to clarify the purpose, as well as origin of the values
> > 
> >  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > index 9a8b2bd..ca10d79 100755
> > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > @@ -5431,6 +5431,24 @@ sub process {
> >  				}
> >  			}
> >  		}
> > +
> > +# validate content of MODULE_LICENSE against list from include/linux/module.h
> > +		if ($line =~ /\bMODULE_LICENSE\s*\(\s*($String)\s*\)/) {
> > +			my $extracted_string = get_quoted_string($line, $rawline);
> > +			my $valid_licenses = qr{
> > +						GPL|
> > +						GPL\ v2|
> > +						GPL\ and\ additional\ rights|
> > +						Dual\ BSD/GPL|
> > +						Dual\ MIT/GPL|
> > +						Dual\ MPL/GPL|
> > +						Proprietary
> > +					}x;
> > +			if ($extracted_string !~ /^"(?:$valid_licenses)"$/x) {
> > +				WARN("MODULE_LICENSE",
> > +				     "unknown module license " . $extracted_string . "\n" . $herecurr);
> > +			}
> > +		}
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	# If we have no input at all, then there is nothing to report on
> 
> 
> 
--
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/