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

[Aaron Tomlin]

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@xxxxxxxxxx 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