Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: CONFIG_MARKERS | From | Jon Masters <> | Date | Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:17:40 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com> writes: > > > > > I notice in module.c: > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS > > > if (!mod->taints) > > > marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers, > > > mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL); > > > #endif > > > > > > Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? [...] > > > > I can't seem to find any discussion about this aspect. If this is the > > intent, it seems misguided to me. There may instead be a relationship > > to TAINT_FORCED_{RMMOD,MODULE}. Mathieu? > > > > - FChE > > On my part, its mostly a matter of not crashing the kernel when someone > tries to force modprobe of a proprietary module (where the checksums > doesn't match) on a kernel that supports the markers. Not doing so > causes the markers to try to find the marker-specific information in > struct module which doesn't exist and OOPSes. > > Christoph's point of view is rather more drastic than mine : it's not > interesting for the kernel community to help proprietary modules writers, > so it's a good idea not to give them marker support. (I CC'ed him so he > can clarify his position).
Right. I thought that was your collective opinion, and I happen to personally agree with you, but my question was more that you should be explicitly comparing to whether it's proprietary and not just whether the taints field is set - there are other flags in there too.
Jon.
| |