run_tests: saner handling of sig key/hashalgo #310
Conversation
|
Hmm stumbled upon the kmod built without openssl. Seems like the proper fix is to actually check for the algo first - if unknown, then skip the key check. The current tests (at least) seem to be backwards. |
evelikov
force-pushed
the
modinfo
branch
2 times, most recently
from
191ae7f to
5aa069a
Compare
|
Pardon for the noise - trying to track down which piece of the stack is borked and thus srcversion is not produced. The original comment was saying Debian, although I suspect it could be kernel version related ... or patch thereof. kmod itself doesn't even know about that field. EDIT: found it - some distros do not set CONFIG_MODULE_SRCVERSION_ALL 🤦 |
Return is only a thing in functions, swap it with exit. Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]>
Currently we make a few odd assumptions - we track the key field first. Which may be either empty (kmod build w/o openssl) or missing all together (aka something has gone horribly wrong). Then based on that we try and workaround the hashalgo. That approach was chosen since kmod <26 was buggy (at least the hashalgo provided was). Instead - start with a kmod version check (anything half-recent uses 26+) then check the algo, which if unknown tells us to not look at the empty key. Or if the hash is known and key is missing we can meaningfully error out. In the process of this, use modinfo -F instead of the current modinfo | grep | sed dance. Side note: the NO_SIGNING_TOOL hunk (and surrounding code) should be de duplicated into a function or sorts. But that for another day. Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]>
|
The srcversion seems semi-magical and semi-broken atm - opened an issue for it #311. The updated PR, should do a saner handing of sig key/hashalgo now ... even though it started with a simple modinfo -F simplification 😅 |
evelikov
changed the title
|
I think it's ready to merge. |
Namely request the field we're interested in.
Aka use
modinfo -F foobarinstead ofmodinfo | grep foobar| sed 's/foobar://'and alike.@xuzhen can you double-check I'm not missing anything?