[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license
    Giuliano Colla wrote:
    > Can you honestly tell apart the two cases, if you don't make a it a case of
    > "religion war"?

    On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:15:13AM -0400, Timothy Miller answered:
    > 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.)

    and unless it's a card with binary-only, proprietary BIOS code called at
    runtime by the kernel, for example by the vesafb.c video driver,
    which despite this has a MODULE_LICENSE("GPL").

    Could someone explain why such execution of evil proprietary binary-only
    code on the host CPU should not also "taint" the kernel? ;-)

    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:0.019 / U:181.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site