[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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

    > > 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.

    - FChE

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-23 14:23    [W:0.023 / U:12.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site