Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:32:57 -0700 | From | Tim Hockin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:24:58PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote: > The inherent instability of binary modules is a religious myth. Any
No, it's REAL, unless VERY CAREFULLY handled. If your binary uses a spinlock, it either works only on SMP or only on UP. If your binary uses any number of kernel structures and interfaces, you are subject to the whims of whomever compiled the kernel. spinlock debuging changes the sizeof(spinlock_t). Some APIs become macros or inlines depending on config options.
You have to toally separate all the kernel code from the binary code. If you can't do that, you end up with a kernel module that works ONLY on a very small subset of kernels. And that sucks. We don't want to encourage that. If your driver manages to cleanly pull out all the binary gunk from the kernel gunk, then kudos to you.
I still don't like it, but at least it has a chance of running.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |