Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] module: Move extra signature support out of core code

[Christophe Leroy]

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 *,