lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_MARKERS
    * Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@redhat.com) wrote:
    > Hi -
    >
    > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:17:40PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
    > > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:10 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
    > > > [...]
    > > > > > 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?
    >
    > > > 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.
    >
    > But you have the wrong target: it is not proprietary modules that have
    > this risk but those built out-of-tree without checksums. Maybe
    > oopsing in this case is not so bad; or the check could just limit itself to
    > FORCED_MODULE.
    >

    I guess that for this one I could have a :

    if (!mod->taints & TAINT_FORCED_MODULE)
    ...


    >
    > > > 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
    >
    > Another way of looking at this though is that by allowing/encouraging
    > proprietary module writers to include markers, we and their users get
    > new diagnostic capabilities. It constitutes a little bit of opening
    > up, which IMO we should reward rather than punish.
    >
    >

    This specific one is a kernel policy matter, and I personally don't
    have a strong opinion about it. I agree that you raise a good counter
    argument : it can be useful to proprietary modules users to be able to
    extract tracing information from those modules to argue with their
    vendors that their driver/hardware is broken (a tracer is _very_ useful
    in that kind of situation). However, it is also useful to proprieraty
    module writers who can benefit from the merged kernel/modules traces.
    Do we want to give them this ability ? It would surely help writing
    better proprieraty kernel modules. Do we want this, or rather prefer to
    put more pressure on them so they open their code ?

    I will let others fight in the mud on this one. :)

    for this one, we could add, instead :

    if (!mod->taints & (TAINT_FORCED_MODULE | TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE))

    Mathieu

    > - FChE

    --
    Mathieu Desnoyers
    Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
    OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-23 15:51    [W:0.033 / U:59.880 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site