linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] module: Move extra signature support out of core code

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: <CANfR36i7fny7_z1j6bVAnzxVpxTXPQYTrZ-NoSTs63K-YuvNWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:51:35 +0000
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     "20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@...hat.com" 
        <20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@...hat.com>,
        "mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "mbenes@...e.cz" <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        "atomlin@...mlin.com" <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
        "ghalat@...hat.com" <ghalat@...hat.com>,
        "allen.lkml@...il.com" <allen.lkml@...il.com>,
        "void@...ifault.com" <void@...ifault.com>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        "msuchanek@...e.de" <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        "oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] module: Move extra signature support out of core code

On Thu 2022-02-10 13:01 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Why do patches 7 to 13 have a Reply-to:
> 20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@...hat.com and not patches 1 to 6 ?

Christophe,

Please disregard this mishap. Unfortunately, at the time I hit the relay
quota.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> > index fd6161d78127..aea0ffd94a41 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/module.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> > @@ -863,6 +863,7 @@ static inline bool module_sig_ok(struct module *module)
> >   {
> >       return true;
> >   }
> > +#define sig_enforce false
> sig_enforce is used only in signing.c so it should be defined there
> exclusively.

Agreed.

> And checkpatch is not happy:
>
> CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum declarations
> #27: FILE: include/linux/module.h:866:
>   }
> +#define sig_enforce false

Ok.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin