Re: [PATCH] module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree
- To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
- Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Debian kernel maintainers <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree
- From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:58:47 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20111024135847.GA26102@redhat.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Debian kernel maintainers <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1319461948.31243.31.camel@deadeye>
- References: <[🔎] 1319461948.31243.31.camel@deadeye>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:12:28PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Use of the GPL or a compatible licence doesn't necessarily make the code
> any good. We already consider staging modules to be suspect, and this
> should also be true for out-of-tree modules which may receive very
> little review.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> ---
> Debian has been carrying this for the last few kernel versions. The
> recent thread '[RFC] virtualbox tainting.' and discussions at KS suggest
> that this might be more generally useful.
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Reply to: