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

Rusty Russell
2004-04-27T23:13:44Z

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 02:58, Marc Boucher wrote:
> Actually, we also have no desire nor purpose to prevent tainting. The purpose
> of the workaround is to avoid repetitive warning messages generated when
> multiple modules belonging to a single logical "driver" are loaded (even when
> a module is only probed but not used due to the hardware not being present).

You lied about the license, rather than submit a one-line change to
kernel/module.c.

This shows a lack of integrity that I find personally repulsive.

Name: Only Print Taint Message Once
Status: Trivial

Only print the tainted message the first time. Its purpose is to warn
users that we can't support them, not to fill their logs.

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .22310-linux-2.6.6-rc2-bk5/kernel/module.c .22310-linux-2.6.6-rc2-bk5.updated/kernel/module.c
--- .22310-linux-2.6.6-rc2-bk5/kernel/module.c 2004-04-22 08:04:00.000000000 +1000
+++ .22310-linux-2.6.6-rc2-bk5.updated/kernel/module.c 2004-04-28 09:03:31.000000000 +1000
@@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ static void set_license(struct module *m
license = "unspecified";

mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
- if (!mod->license_gplok) {
+ if (!mod->license_gplok && !(tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
mod->name, license);
tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;

--
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell