On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:30:41PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:41:57AM -0500, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Kernels that have had Windows drivers loaded into them are undebuggable.
> > > I've wasted a number of hours chasing bugs filed in Fedora bugzilla
> > > only to find out much later that the user had used such 'helpers',
> > > and their problems were unreproducable without them loaded.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.14/kernel/module.c~ 2005-11-29 16:44:00.000000000 -0500
> > > +++ linux-2.6.14/kernel/module.c 2005-11-29 17:03:55.000000000 -0500
> > > @@ -1723,6 +1723,11 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
> > > /* Set up license info based on the info section */
> > > set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
> > >
> > > + if (strcmp(mod->name, "ndiswrapper") == 0)
> > > + add_taint(TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
> > > + if (strcmp(mod->name, "driverloader") == 0)
> > > + add_taint(TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
> > > /* Set up MODINFO_ATTR fields */
> > > setup_modinfo(mod, sechdrs, infoindex);
> >
> > So your are blacklisting certain drivers? If so, you probably
> > should have an array containing their names plus a header-file
> > into which the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of future module-
> > names can be added.
> >
> > ... Not meant as a joke or an affront. User's should be able to
> > know what hardware to NOT purchase because of the proprietary
> > nature of their drivers. Putting a couple "exceptions" into
> > code as above is not good coding practice. If you need to
> > exclude stuff, there should be an exclusion procedure that
> > treats all that stuff equally, no?
>
> There's a point where the effort of creating an array, and
> loops to parse it isn't worth it. For two entries, this
> seemed a lot simpler.
>
> Though if there more additions, I'd agree.
>
> Dave
Hello,
You've hard-coded some module names, that itself `taints' the
kernel source IMO. Blacklisting in kernel is both ugly and unacceptable.
I agree that it would be convenient for you to only check if there's `Not tainted' in oops messages. But I still suggest you to not hard-code them in the
kernel source. Instead you could use some script to grep the problematic module
names in the `Modules linked in' field.
For the long run, we could:
1) Add some other mechanism, like MODULE_LICENSE_STRICT("GPL.strict").
GPL.strict: A GPL.strict module is not only itself licensed under GPL,
but it shall not load/link any binary code (specially non-gpl binaries)
nor any non-GPL.strict code. This definition goes recursively.
Then we let a module without GPL.strict taints the kernel. This time we
treat everyone equally.
2) Fix the gpl in gpl3; follow the above.
--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
