Le 02/03/2022 à 14:33, Aaron Tomlin a écrit :
> On Wed 2022-03-02 08:08 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> +bool is_module_sig_enforced(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return sig_enforce;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(is_module_sig_enforced);
>>
>> As reported by the test robot, that's not enough.
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> Thanks for testing this.
>
>> When it was in main.c, is_module_sig_enforced() was build as soon as
>> CONFIG_MODULES was set.
>> Now it is only built when CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is selected,
>
> Agreed.
>
>> so you have to modify include/linux/modules.h and have the stub
>> is_module_sig_enforced() when CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not selected and not
>> only when CONFIG_MODULES is not selected.
>
> Sure: when Kconfig CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not selected.
>
> Luis,
>
> I can see that the latest series is in mcgrof/modules-testing.
> Should I address the above as a separate patch with "Fixes:" or
> provide a whole new series, with the fix within the same patch?
> In my opinion, another iteration would be cleaner.
>
>
On the powerpc list, usually for this kind of stuff, if the fixup
doesn't impact the other commits of the series, we provide an
incremental fixup and Michael squashes it in the faulty commit while
rebasing.
That way you get the advantage of a new iteration without the disadvantages.
Up to Luis to tell what he prefers.
Christophe
