Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: - [High] Missing alignment for `.initcall.modnames` section causes unaligned pointer reads and potential kernel crashes during early boot. - [Low] The Rust `module!` macro generates invalid code by dereferencing a dynamically sized slice `[u8]` into a fixed-size array `[u8; N]`. --
commit 828a4fa4f29a0a3c5aba9065f4ba35eb845dddef Author: Aaron Tomlin <[email protected]> module: Extend module_blacklist parameter to built-in modules This commit extends the module_blacklist command-line parameter to apply to built-in modules. It achieves this by creating a new .initcall.modnames section to map initcalls to module names, intercepting blacklisted builtin initcalls during early boot. > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > index b2988aa12f664..7490278b7a2df 100644 > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > @@ -734,7 +734,8 @@ > EARLYCON_TABLE() \ > LSM_TABLE() \ > EARLY_LSM_TABLE() \ > - KUNIT_INIT_TABLE() > + KUNIT_INIT_TABLE() \ > + BOUNDED_SECTION_BY(.initcall.modnames, _initcall_modnames) [Severity: High] Does this section declaration need an alignment constraint? Without a preceding . = ALIGN(8); or similar, the __start_initcall_modnames label might capture the unaligned location counter before padding is inserted by the linker. When iterating over this section during early boot in do_initcall_level(), could the kernel read padding bytes as garbage pointers, breaking the builtin module blacklist feature or causing an unaligned memory access panic? [ ... ] > diff --git a/rust/macros/module.rs b/rust/macros/module.rs > index bc7027f8dbb2c..a96157598197f 100644 > --- a/rust/macros/module.rs > +++ b/rust/macros/module.rs [ ... ] > @@ -591,6 +594,20 @@ pub extern "C" fn cleanup_module() { > #[cfg(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PREL32_RELOCATIONS)] > ::core::arch::global_asm!(#global_asm); > > + #[cfg(not(MODULE))] > + #[used(compiler)] > + #[link_section = ".init.rodata"] > + static #ident_modname_str: [u8; #name_len] = > *#name_cstr.to_bytes_with_nul(); [Severity: Low] Will this cause a compilation failure for built-in Rust modules? It attempts to initialize a fixed-size array by dereferencing a dynamically sized slice returned by to_bytes_with_nul(). This could break the build when CONFIG_MODULES=n or when a Rust module is configured as built-in. -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
