[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Tainting kernels for non-GPL or forced modules
Keith Owens writes:

> I have started work on the patch for /proc/sys/kernel/tainted with the
> corresponding modutils and ksymoops changes. insmod of a non-GPL
> module ORs /proc/sys/kernel/tainted with 1, insmod -f ORs with 2.

So now these will taint the kernel?

2-clause BSD
public domain

They are all non-GPL.

> What to do about modules with no license? Complain and taint or
> silently ignore? A lot of modules in -ac14 have no MODULE_LICENSE,
> probably because they have no MODULE_AUTHOR. IMHO the default should
> be complain and taint, even though it will generate lots of newbie
> questions to l-k.

Give them separate bits.

0x00000001 unknown license
0x00000002 fully GPL-compatible license (GPL, LGPL, 2-clause BSD, X11)
0x00000004 other certified "Open Source" license (MPL, 4-clause BSD)
0x00000008 source available, but w/o certified "Open Source" licensing
0x00000010 no source available
0x00000020 non-redistributable binary
0x10000000 any module at all (prove that user did load a module)
0x20000000 insmod -f
0x40000000 hacked in, using
0x80000000 hacked in with unresolved references

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 13:03    [W:0.079 / U:3.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site