Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> To: "Johannes Berg" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "David
> Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:51:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> 
> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:
> > Going on a tangent here - our use case is using backported upstream
> > kernel modules (https://backports.wiki.kernel.org/) for delivering a
> > driver to people who decided that they absolutely need to run with some
> > random kernel (e.g. 3.10) but we don't yet support all the driver
> > features they want/need in the kernel they picked.
> 
> Ah, a user!  See, that's not the "I forgot to sign my modules" case the
> others were complaining about.
> 
> > We push our code upstream as soon as we can and typically only diverge
> > from upstream by a few patches, so saying things like "crap" or "felony
> > law breaker" about out-of-tree modules in general makes me furious.
> 
> Appreciated and understood.
> 
> I have applied Mathieu's patch to my pending tree, with Ingo's Nack
> recorded.

Hi Rusty,

That RFC patch was superseded by a newer version, posted in a separate thread.
There were documentation and other printout sites to update. I posted the
non-RFC version of the patch here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/14/4

(you should have it in your inbox)

Please let me know if I need to repost it.

Thanks!

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com