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

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

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, "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: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:24:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> 
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:11:56 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>  
> > Although, is "N" the best letter to use for this taint? Not sure, but
> > everything else I can think of looks to be already taken. Maybe "X"?
> > You know. When you sign your name and don't know how to spell it, you
> > just simply use an "X". :-)
> 
> I actually think "X" is appropriate. You want signed modules, but the
> module being loaded doesn't know how to sign its name, so we simply use
> an "X" for it (in the taint flag).

I like the "X" idea :) Will prepare an updated patch with it.

Thanks,

Mathieu
 

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