Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:01:40 -0500 | | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | | Subject | Re: CONFIG_MARKERS |
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca) wrote:
> * 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)
> ...
>
as one could notice: missing parenthesis
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))
>
here too
if (!(mod->taints & (TAINT_FORCED_MODULE | TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)))
Which remembers me to never write code before my first coffee in the
morning ;)
Mathieu
> 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
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
|  |