Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Helge Hafting
2004-04-30T11:48:38Z

Timothy Miller wrote:

>
> While we're on all of this, are we going to change "tained" to some
> other less alarmist word? Say there is a /proc file or some report that
> you can generate about the kernel that simply wants to indicate that the
> kernel contains closed-source modules, and we want to use a short,
> concise word like "tainted" for this. "An untrusted module has been
> loaded into this kernel" would be just a bit too long to qualify.
>
> Hmmm... how about "untrusted"? Not sure...

"Unsupported" seems a good candidate to me. It describes the
situation fairly well. Such a kernel is unsupported by the
kernel community, and probably by the binary module vendor
too. They tend to restrict support to their own module . . .

Helge Hafting