Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
However, this one may require a rethink..
(Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
commit 7fd8329ba502ef76dd91db561c7aed696b2c7720
Author: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Sep 21 13:47:22 2016 +0200
taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
Contains this chunk:
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -506,6 +506,15 @@ extern enum system_states {
#define TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE 13
#define TAINT_SOFTLOCKUP 14
#define TAINT_LIVEPATCH 15
+#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT 16
+
+struct taint_flag {
+ char true; /* character printed when tainted */
+ char false; /* character printed when not tainted */
+ bool module; /* also show as a per-module taint flag */
+};
and hilarity ensues when an out-of-tree module has this:
# ifndef true
# define true (1)
# endif
# ifndef false
# define false (0)
# endif
My proposed fix: change true/false to tainted/untainted. If this
is agreeable, I'll code and submit the fix.
+++ Valdis Kletnieks [21/12/16 15:42 -0500]:
>Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
>However, this one may require a rethink..
>
>(Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
>affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
>
>commit 7fd8329ba502ef76dd91db561c7aed696b2c7720
>Author: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed Sep 21 13:47:22 2016 +0200
>
> taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
>
>Contains this chunk:
>
>--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
>+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
>@@ -506,6 +506,15 @@ extern enum system_states {
> #define TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE 13
> #define TAINT_SOFTLOCKUP 14
> #define TAINT_LIVEPATCH 15
>+#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT 16
>+
>+struct taint_flag {
>+ char true; /* character printed when tainted */
>+ char false; /* character printed when not tainted */
>+ bool module; /* also show as a per-module taint flag */
>+};
>
>and hilarity ensues when an out-of-tree module has this:
>
># ifndef true
># define true (1)
># endif
># ifndef false
># define false (0)
># endif
>
>My proposed fix: change true/false to tainted/untainted. If this
>is agreeable, I'll code and submit the fix.
Sure, that's fine with me.
Jessica
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:42:05PM -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
> However, this one may require a rethink..
>
> (Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
> affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
>
> commit 7fd8329ba502ef76dd91db561c7aed696b2c7720
> Author: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Sep 21 13:47:22 2016 +0200
>
> taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
>
> Contains this chunk:
>
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -506,6 +506,15 @@ extern enum system_states {
> #define TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE 13
> #define TAINT_SOFTLOCKUP 14
> #define TAINT_LIVEPATCH 15
> +#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT 16
> +
> +struct taint_flag {
> + char true; /* character printed when tainted */
> + char false; /* character printed when not tainted */
> + bool module; /* also show as a per-module taint flag */
> +};
>
> and hilarity ensues when an out-of-tree module has this:
>
> # ifndef true
> # define true (1)
> # endif
> # ifndef false
> # define false (0)
> # endif
>
> My proposed fix: change true/false to tainted/untainted. If this
> is agreeable, I'll code and submit the fix.
That certainly makes sense, but this kind of macros really ought to be
killed off. In-tree there are only two such places - arch/powerpc/boot/types.h
(no idea what's the environment there, but seeing that it starts with
#include <stdbool.h>...) and fs/cifs/smbencrypt.c.
BTW, looking at arch/powerpc/boot/types.h... How does it manage to survive,
anyway? gcc stdbool.h has #define bool _Bool, so that typedef int bool; in
there would turn into typedef int _Bool, which should *not* be accepted by
any C compiler. Or does it define __stdcplusplus somehow? Confused...
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:42:05PM -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
> However, this one may require a rethink..
>
> (Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
> affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
So fix your out of tree module.
On Wed 2016-12-21 15:42:05, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
> However, this one may require a rethink..
>
> (Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
> affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
>
> commit 7fd8329ba502ef76dd91db561c7aed696b2c7720
> Author: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Sep 21 13:47:22 2016 +0200
>
> taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
>
> Contains this chunk:
>
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -506,6 +506,15 @@ extern enum system_states {
> #define TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE 13
> #define TAINT_SOFTLOCKUP 14
> #define TAINT_LIVEPATCH 15
> +#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT 16
> +
> +struct taint_flag {
> + char true; /* character printed when tainted */
> + char false; /* character printed when not tainted */
> + bool module; /* also show as a per-module taint flag */
> +};
>
> and hilarity ensues when an out-of-tree module has this:
>
> # ifndef true
> # define true (1)
> # endif
> # ifndef false
> # define false (0)
> # endif
>
> My proposed fix: change true/false to tainted/untainted. If this
> is agreeable, I'll code and submit the fix.
Great catch! I did not have a good feeling about the names. But
I did not found this problem and kept them to reduce changes
in the code.
If we change it, I would go even further and make the purpose
clear, e.g. use char_tainted/char_untainted. The names feel
like booleans wihtout the char_ prefix.
Best Regards,
Petr