Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:24:53 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [hsflinux] [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
Giuliano Colla wrote:
> As an end user, if I buy a full fledged modem, I get some amount of > proprietary, non GPL, code which executes within the board or the > PCMCIA card of the modem. The GPL driver may even support the > functionality of downloading a new version of *proprietary* code into > the flash Eprom of the device. The GPL linux driver interfaces with it, > and all is kosher. > On the other hand, I have the misfortune of being stuck with a > soft-modem, roughly the *same* proprietary code is provided as a binary > file, and a linux driver (source provided) interfaces with it. In that > case the kernel is flagged as "tainted". > > But in both cases, if the driver is poorly written, because of > developer's inadequacy, or because of the proprietary code being poorly > documented and/or implemented, my kernel may go nuts, be it tainted or not. > > Can you honestly tell apart the two cases, if you don't make a it a case > of "religion war"? >
Firmware downloaded into a piece of hardware can't corrupt the kernel in the host.
(Unless it's a bus master which writes to random memory, which might be possible, but there is hardware you can buy to watch PCI transactions.)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |