Skip to content

module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL characters

Kees Cook linux-hardening linux-media linux-modules linux-sparse lkml 2 versions – Applied

Status from this message: Applied patch 3, thanks!

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first · linked by author and title

  1. v2 Latest3 patches 34 repliesApplied
  2. v13 patches 21 repliesSuperseded

Changes in v2 from the cover letter

- use static_assert instead of _Static_assert
- add Hans's Reviewed-by's
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

Patches in v2 Applied

#Subject and filesSizeRepliesApplied
1/3media: dvb-usb-v2: lmedm04: Fix firmware macro definitionsdrivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/lmedm04.c+6 -61 reply
2/3media: radio: si470x: Fix DRIVER_AUTHOR macro definitiondrivers/media/radio/si470x/radio-si470x-i2c.c+1 -11 reply
3/3module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL charactersinclude/linux/moduleparam.h+3 -010 replies

Reviews trailers per patch

All 3 patches have a Reviewed-by or Acked-by of their own; the series has one for all of them.

PatchHans VerkuilPetr PavluMauro Carvalho ChehabAaron TomlinDaniel Gomez
SeriesR-b T-b
1/3R-b R-b
2/3R-b R-b
3/3R-b R-b R-b

Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes. Scroll the table sideways for all 5 reviewers.

Read the v2 thread

Cover letter [PATCH v2 0/3] module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL characters

v2:
- use static_assert instead of _Static_assert
- add Hans's Reviewed-by's
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

Hi!

A long time ago we had an issue with embedded NUL bytes in MODULE_INFO strings[1]. While this stands out pretty strongly when you look at the code, and we can't do anything about a binary module that just plain lies, we never actually implemented the trivial compile-time check needed to detect it.

Add this check (and fix 2 instances of needless trailing semicolons that this change exposed).

Note that these patches were produced as part of another LLM exercise. This time I wanted to try "what happens if I ask an LLM to go read a specific LWN article and write a patch based on a discussion?" It pretty effortlessly chose and implemented a suggested solution, tested the change, and fixed new build warnings in the process.

Since this was a relatively short session, here's an overview of the prompts involved as I guided it through a clean change and tried to see how it would reason about static_assert vs _Static_assert. (It wanted to use what was most common, not what was the current style -- we may want to update the comment above the static_assert macro to suggest using _Static_assert directly these days...)

I want to fix a weakness in the module info strings. Read about it
here: https://lwn.net/Articles/82305/

Since it's only "info" that we need to check, can you reduce the checks to just that instead of all the other stuff?

I think the change to the comment is redundent, and that should be in a commit log instead. Let's just keep the change to the static assert.

Is "static_assert" the idiomatic way to use a static assert in this code base? I've seen _Static_assert used sometimes.

What's the difference between the two?

Does Linux use C11 by default now?

Then let's not use the wrapper any more.

Do an "allmodconfig all -s" build to verify this works for all modules in the kernel.

Thanks!

-Kees

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/82305/

Kees Cook (3):
media: dvb-usb-v2: lmedm04: Fix firmware macro definitions
media: radio: si470x: Fix DRIVER_AUTHOR macro definition
module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL characters

 include/linux/moduleparam.h                   |  3 +++
 drivers/media/radio/si470x/radio-si470x-i2c.c |  2 +-
 drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/lmedm04.c        | 12 ++++++------
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1