linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] module: Move all into 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: <CANfR36js06qG8HkQBPPz8bnYzcBRUtiZJAqhynt4XJcfcFXAQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:48:00 +0000
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     "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>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        "msuchanek@...e.de" <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        "oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] module: Move all into module/

On Mon 2022-02-21 12:21 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 18/02/2022 à 22:24, Aaron Tomlin a écrit :
> > No functional changes.
> >
> > This patch moves all module related code into a separate directory,
> > modifies each file name and creates a new Makefile. Note: this effort
> > is in preparation to refactor core module code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >   MAINTAINERS                                         | 2 +-
> >   kernel/Makefile                                     | 5 +----
> >   kernel/module/Makefile                              | 9 +++++++++
> >   kernel/{module_decompress.c => module/decompress.c} | 2 +-
> >   kernel/{module-internal.h => module/internal.h}     | 0
> >   kernel/{module.c => module/main.c}                  | 2 +-
> >   kernel/{module_signature.c => module/signature.c}   | 0
> >   kernel/{module_signing.c => module/signing.c}       | 2 +-
> >   8 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 kernel/module/Makefile
> >   rename kernel/{module_decompress.c => module/decompress.c} (99%)
> >   rename kernel/{module-internal.h => module/internal.h} (100%)
> >   rename kernel/{module.c => module/main.c} (99%)
> >   rename kernel/{module_signature.c => module/signature.c} (100%)
> >   rename kernel/{module_signing.c => module/signing.c} (97%)
> >
>
> I'm wondering whether we should avoid moving module_signature.c and
> leave it in kernel/ as this file is used even when CONFIG_MODULES is not
> selected, and he is the only one like this.
>
> Keeping it outside of kernel/module/ would allow to conditionaly build
> entire kernel/module/ based of CONFIG_MODULES and then avoid all checks
> against CONFIG_MODULES which look misleading at times.

Luis,

What is your opinion on this? Indeed, mod_check_sig() is used by code
outside of kernel/module/ too i.e. ima_read_modsig(); albeit, I believe it
does make sense to keep it under kernel/module/ since the function in
question is used to review a given module's signature anyway.

Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin