From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Aaron Lehmann" <aaronl@vitelus.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Linux 2.4.9-ac6
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:09:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <NOEJJDACGOHCKNCOGFOMGEBNDLAA.davids@webmaster.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <NOEJJDACGOHCKNCOGFOMMEBMDLAA.davids@webmaster.com>
> I think, perhaps, the logic should be that a module
> shouldn't taint the kernel if:
>
> 1) The user built the module from source on that machine, OR
>
> 2) The module source is freely available without restriction
I just realized two things. One, there's a strong argument that this should
be an AND, not an OR. Second, even if the code is freely available, it might
have been locally modified and the local modifications may not be easily
available (this can happen even if the code is GPL'd since source
distribution is only required if the compiled code is distributed). So the
stamping of the module source as freely available would have to have a
checksum or something like that. (Unless this is officially deemed to be No
Big Deal.)
DS
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-05 7:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-03 1:50 Linux 2.4.9-ac6 Alan Cox
2001-09-03 2:51 ` Keith Owens
2001-09-03 3:08 ` Dave Jones
2001-09-03 13:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-03 13:21 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-05 1:51 ` Keith Owens
2001-09-05 3:30 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 3:50 ` Keith Owens
2001-09-05 5:16 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 5:39 ` Alan Shutko
2001-09-05 18:46 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 5:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-09-05 5:56 ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-09-05 7:03 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 7:09 ` David Schwartz [this message]
2001-09-05 9:50 ` Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2001-09-05 9:57 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 12:50 ` christophe barbé
2001-09-05 13:06 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-05 13:14 ` Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2001-09-05 13:23 ` christophe barbé
2001-09-05 14:05 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-09-05 7:18 ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-09-05 7:19 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 9:41 ` Justin Guyett
2001-09-05 9:53 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 10:21 ` Justin Guyett
2001-09-05 11:55 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-05 18:46 ` David Schwartz
2001-09-05 18:54 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-05 22:09 ` Linux 2.4.9-ac6 (really about tainting) David Schwartz
2001-09-05 12:07 ` Linux 2.4.9-ac6 Alan Cox
2001-09-05 12:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
2001-09-05 12:23 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-05 14:36 Thomas Foerster
2001-09-06 19:23 ` Camiel Vanderhoeven
2001-09-06 20:14 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=NOEJJDACGOHCKNCOGFOMGEBNDLAA.davids@webmaster.com \
--to=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=aaronl@vitelus.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox