Why do patches 7 to 13 have a Reply-to:
20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx and not patches 1 to 6 ?
Le 09/02/2022 à 18:08, Aaron Tomlin a écrit :
> No functional change.
>
> This patch migrates additional module signature check
> code from core module code into kernel/module/signing.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/module.h | 1 +
> kernel/module/internal.h | 9 +++++
> kernel/module/main.c | 87 ----------------------------------------
> kernel/module/signing.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index fd6161d78127..aea0ffd94a41 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -863,6 +863,7 @@ static inline bool module_sig_ok(struct module *module)
> {
> return true;
> }
> +#define sig_enforce false
Having that is module.h it may redefine some existing symbol, like in
security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
sig_enforce is used only in signing.c so it should be defined there
exclusively. This #define shouldn't be needed at all.
And checkpatch is not happy:
CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum declarations
#27: FILE: include/linux/module.h:866:
}
+#define sig_enforce false
> #endif /* CONFIG_MODULE_SIG */
>
> int module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol(int (*fn)(void *, const char *,
