From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756319Ab2ADCcD (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:32:03 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:36051 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754608Ab2ADCcA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:32:00 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: log OOT_MODULE tainting In-Reply-To: References: <87zke5en2z.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.6.1-1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:22:51 +1030 Message-ID: <87d3b0dyj0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:47:02 +0100 (CET), Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > Follow what we do with other taints and output a message into kernel ring > > > buffer once tainting a kernel because out-of-tree module is being loaded. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina > > > > I don't like this, actually. There's a wish among some distributions to > > know that OOT modules are in use in panic messages, but not by others. > > Certainly, there's no reason to warn the user. > > I do get your point, but it seems to me that we are at least not > consistent here. Why would we then log messages in cases of > TAINT_FORCED_MODULE for example? The user knows that he has forced the > module load, right? Agreed, we're not consistent at all. But a forcing a module is such a weird and risky thing to do, the user can ignore a warning message. Cheers, Rusty.