From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: "Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
"Hans Verkuil" <hverkuil+cisco@kernel.org>,
"Malcolm Priestley" <tvboxspy@gmail.com>,
"Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
"Hans Verkuil" <hverkuil@kernel.org>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"Petr Pavlu" <petr.pavlu@suse.com>,
"Daniel Gomez" <da.gomez@kernel.org>,
"Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL characters
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 20:06:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251010030348.it.784-kees@kernel.org> (raw)
v2:
- use static_assert instead of _Static_assert
- add Hans's Reviewed-by's
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20251008033844.work.801-kees@kernel.org/
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(-)
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-10-10 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-10 3:06 Kees Cook [this message]
2025-10-10 3:06 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] media: dvb-usb-v2: lmedm04: Fix firmware macro definitions Kees Cook
2025-10-10 7:10 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-10-10 3:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] media: radio: si470x: Fix DRIVER_AUTHOR macro definition Kees Cook
2025-10-10 7:10 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-10-10 3:06 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] module: Add compile-time check for embedded NUL characters Kees Cook
2025-10-10 4:19 ` Petr Pavlu
2025-10-21 2:05 ` Aaron Tomlin
2025-11-03 8:54 ` Hans Verkuil
2025-11-03 8:58 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-03 9:05 ` Hans Verkuil
2025-11-03 19:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] " Daniel Gomez
2025-11-04 0:13 ` Kees Cook
2025-11-04 6:35 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-04 10:35 ` Hans Verkuil
2025-11-04 12:03 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-04 20:35 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-04 20:59 ` Hans Verkuil
2025-11-05 13:03 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-05 13:06 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-11-05 13:19 ` Daniel Gomez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251010030348.it.784-kees@kernel.org \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=da.gomez@kernel.org \
--cc=hverkuil+cisco@kernel.org \
--cc=hverkuil@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=tvboxspy@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).