elf_validit...e_index_info(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

πŸ’… elf_validit...e_index_info(9) πŸ’…

okay so this is from the Kernel API Manual bestie, and the page you're looking at is elf_validit...e_index_info(9) β€” yes the name is literally truncated like that, that's just how it's printed, don't come for me 🫢


✨ NAME ✨

elf_validity_cache_index_info β€” the girl whose whole job is validating the modinfo section and caching it. multitasking icon πŸ‘‘


🌸 SYNOPSIS 🌸

int elf_validity_cache_index_info (struct load_info *info );

πŸŽ€ ARGUMENTS πŸŽ€

  • info β€” the load info you're populating the modinfo index on. it is literally non-negotiable that load_info->sechdrs and load_info->secstrings are already populated, like those are the prerequisites bestie, come prepared πŸ’…

πŸ¦‹ DESCRIPTION πŸ¦‹

okay so here's the tea β˜•. first it checks whether there's a .modinfo section at all β€” and if there is one, it has to be unique. like, one and only one. no duplicates allowed, periodt.

then it caches that index in load_info->index.info. slay. that's the whole caching thing done.

and finally? it tries to populate the name, purely to make error messages nicer for everyone. it's giving "doing it for the plot" but the plot is better error messages πŸ’–


πŸ”₯ RETURN πŸ”₯

  • 0 β€” all good, valid, we love to see it ✨
  • -ENOEXEC β€” bestie… there were multiple modinfo sections found. not the vibe. 😭

πŸ’œ SEE ALSO πŸ’œ

a whole friend group of related pages, go say hi 🫢


ngl if you got -ENOEXEC it's because your .modinfo section brought its clone to the party πŸ™ˆ one section only, no cap.

⭐ that's the whole page!! sourced straight from ./kernel/module and dated October 2026 β€” go off, future girlies πŸŒˆπŸ’…πŸ‘‘

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from