On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 22:18 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > On 5/18/09, Andreas Robinson <andr345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would it be terribly ugly to have next_string() check that a terminator > > exists at the end of the section and if it doesn't, insert one and then > > write a warning message to the log? > > Yeah, terribly ugly :-). That would require mapping the file as copy > on write (private). But I _think_ we should be able to run on NOMMU, > where that is not supported. > > I would prefer that the program refuse to handle the module if it is > discovered to be corrupt. I don't think we should try and work around > such corruption. The easy way is if next_string() checks the terminator, prints a warning if it's missing, and returns NULL, i.e finds no strings at all. OTOH, the program wouldn't exactly refuse anything in this case, just misbehave. I will write up a patch that actually makes it stop and complain. > > Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
