[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: What does tainting actually mean?

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:19:32 -0400, Chris Friesen
<> wrote:
> If only it were that easy.
> There has already been a case mentioned of a binary module that messed
> up something that was only visible once that module was unloaded and
> another one loaded. It all depends totally on usage patterns.

I don't know what module you're talking about, but surely there must be
something that could be done kernel-side to protect against such problems.
Reference counting or such like? I guess if it was a hardware issue, but
then again that might be an issue with too many assumptions being made
about prior state? Maybe I am being too naive :>

> Binary modules, on the other hand, are often loaded up by users that
> know just barely enough to download them and run an install script. In
> this case, it can be helpful to know up front that there has been
> proprietary code running in kernel space, and aside from calls to kernel
> APIs, we have no clue what else it was doing, what memory was being
> trampled, what cpu registers were whacked, etc.

Now I see your point. Of course my previous point about patches is still
valid though: the tainted flag only gives part of the picture. The person
reporting the bug might create just as much of a black box for us by
forgetting to mention that they applied patch foobar.


Nigel Cunningham
C/- Westminster Presbyterian Church Belconnen
61 Templeton Street, Cook, ACT 2614, Australia.
+61 (2) 6251 7727 (wk)
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 14:02    [W:0.072 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site