linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] nvmem: sprd: Add missing MODULE_DEVICE

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:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:55:09 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...wei.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] nvmem: sprd: Add missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:33:40AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> From: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...wei.com>
> 
> This patch adds missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE definition which generates
> correct modalias for automatic loading of this driver when it is built
> as an external module.
> 
> Fixes: 096030e7f449 ("nvmem: sprd: Add Spreadtrum SoCs eFuse support")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c b/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> index 59523245db8a..5d394559edf2 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/sprd-efuse.c
> @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id sprd_efuse_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "sprd,ums312-efuse", .data = &ums312_data },
>  	{ }
>  };
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sprd_efuse_of_match);

Why is this needed?  Do you have reports of this module not being
properly auto-loaded?

I have been rejecting these types of patches from the "Hulk Robot" as
they were just blindly going through the tree and not determining if
this actually is a thing that needed to be fixed.

Also, if it is a real fix, shouldn't it also go to the stable kernel
trees?  If so, you didn't mark it as such :(

thanks,

greg k-h