Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220209170814.3268487-1-atomlin@redhat.com> <8b7988be-488e-f570-b499-5892c57f5e04@csgroup.eu>
In-Reply-To: <8b7988be-488e-f570-b499-5892c57f5e04@csgroup.eu>
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:51:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CANfR36i7fny7_z1j6bVAnzxVpxTXPQYTrZ-NoSTs63K-YuvNWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] module: Move extra signature support out of core code
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     "20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@redhat.com" 
        <20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@redhat.com>,
        "mcgrof@kernel.org" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        "cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
        "pmladek@suse.com" <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "mbenes@suse.cz" <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "jeyu@kernel.org" <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@vger.kernel.org" <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@vger.kernel.org" <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
        "atomlin@atomlin.com" <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
        "ghalat@redhat.com" <ghalat@redhat.com>,
        "allen.lkml@gmail.com" <allen.lkml@gmail.com>,
        "void@manifault.com" <void@manifault.com>,
        "joe@perches.com" <joe@perches.com>,
        "msuchanek@suse.de" <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        "oleksandr@natalenko.name" <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2022-02-10 13:01 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Why do patches 7 to 13 have a Reply-to:
> 20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@redhat.com and not patches 1 to 6 ?

Christophe,

Please disregard this mishap. Unfortunately, at the time I hit the relay
quota.

> > 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
> sig_enforce is used only in signing.c so it should be defined there
> exclusively.

Agreed.

> 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

Ok.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin