On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:01 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> On 5/18/09, Andreas Robinson <andr345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The version you've posted now implements "just misbehave". Did you
> change your mind?
Yes kind of. I realized we wouldn't want load_strings() to be fatal in
modinfo and depmod when they are processing several modules.
OTOH, it is possible to have it both ways ... I'll add an errfn_t
parameter or something and let it be decided at the callsite whether an
error in load_strings() is fatal or not.
> + if (*(strings + size - 1) != '\0') {
> + error("Ignoring malformed section %s in %s ",
> + " - the last string terminator is missing.\n",
> + secname, module->pathname);
> + return NULL;
> + }
>
> From my point of view, the easiest way is to make the error message a
> fatal() one. I would prefer not to "be lenient in what you accept"
> when loading code into the kernel :-).
You mean like Linus? ;-)
fatal("This module is TOTAL CRAP. There is a string without a terminator
in it and that IS NOT VALID.");
> Thanks again for working on this
And I appreciate the feedback from you and Jon. When you get the chance
to do something "the right way" instead of picking the first solution
that pops up because that's all there is time for, you get better at
what you're doing, I think. So this is a good way for me to hone my
skills and do something useful at the same time.
--
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
