linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/13] module: Move version support into a separate file

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: <954fcff8-ddf2-f2bc-05ce-6a7f9d668ae2@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:11:17 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
CC:     Aaron Tomlin <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>,
        "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 13/13] module: Move version support into a separate
 file



Le 15/02/2022 à 16:05, Aaron Tomlin a écrit :
> On Sun 2022-02-13 18:29 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> I'm not sure you can do that.
>>
>>   From commit 8c8ef42aee8f ("module: include other structures in module
>> version check") I understand that module_layout is there for some signature.
> 
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> I see. In which case, if I understand correctly, we'd have to ignore the
> report from Sparse. I will add a comment to hopefully suggest against
> removal.
> 
> 

I would add the function's prototype in internal.h to shut up sparse.

Christophe