Re: [PATCH ??] Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

Gianluca Alberici
2006-10-29T11:19:09Z

Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:27:41 -0700
>Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
>>
>>For ndiswrapper, don't set the module->taints flags,
>>just set the kernel global tainted flag.
>>This should allow ndiswrapper to continue to use GPL symbols.
>>Not tested.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
>>---
>> kernel/module.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>--- linux-2619-rc3-pv.orig/kernel/module.c
>>+++ linux-2619-rc3-pv/kernel/module.c
>>@@ -1718,7 +1718,7 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
>> set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
>>
>> if (strcmp(mod->name, "ndiswrapper") == 0)
>>- add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>>+ add_taint(TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>> if (strcmp(mod->name, "driverloader") == 0)
>> add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>>
>>
>>
>
>Could someone please test this for us
>
>

tested on rc2-mm2. It works.

I think it would be really good to hear somebody from the ndiswrapper
group about this thread. During these 6 months (?) i believe both the
kernel and ndiswrapper could go very far with a good collaboration.

Another thing: shouldnt be more efficent and readable to remove those
"if ((strcmp...." from modules.c and to put all the tainted modules
names into a separate source file into, say, a string array ? What if we
had 250 tainted modules ?

And finally, it seems to me that ideas are not perfectly clear about
what Linux should / should not do in respect to

- GPLed
- NON GPLed
- (???) GPLed

drivers. I believe policies and potential problems should be cristal
clear before making any implementation.

Regards,

Gianluca