[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Tainting kernels for non-GPL or forced modules
    Keith Owens writes:

    > I have started work on the patch for /proc/sys/kernel/tainted with the
    > corresponding modutils and ksymoops changes. insmod of a non-GPL
    > module ORs /proc/sys/kernel/tainted with 1, insmod -f ORs with 2.

    So now these will taint the kernel?

    2-clause BSD
    public domain

    They are all non-GPL.

    > What to do about modules with no license? Complain and taint or
    > silently ignore? A lot of modules in -ac14 have no MODULE_LICENSE,
    > probably because they have no MODULE_AUTHOR. IMHO the default should
    > be complain and taint, even though it will generate lots of newbie
    > questions to l-k.

    Give them separate bits.

    0x00000001 unknown license
    0x00000002 fully GPL-compatible license (GPL, LGPL, 2-clause BSD, X11)
    0x00000004 other certified "Open Source" license (MPL, 4-clause BSD)
    0x00000008 source available, but w/o certified "Open Source" licensing
    0x00000010 no source available
    0x00000020 non-redistributable binary
    0x10000000 any module at all (prove that user did load a module)
    0x20000000 insmod -f
    0x40000000 hacked in, using
    0x80000000 hacked in with unresolved references

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.029 / U:46.844 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site