Re: [PATCH] module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:17:24PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:04:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:51:42PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 2011-10-25 18:05 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:38 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > > > This patch prevents the use of lockdep for debugging out of tree
> > > > > modules, which is rather mean.
> > > >
> > > > It was already disabled for staging modules, which seems equally
> > > > unhelpful.
> > >
> > > This is not the case: lockdep works fine with staging modules.
> >
> > Yes, that was fixed a few kernel versions ago.
> >
> > Now you might want to update that fix for the TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag as
> > well, if you feel it is needed.
>
> I'm assuming you mean this patch ?
>
> commit 7816c45bf13255157c00fb8aca86cb64d825e878
> Author: Roland Vossen <rvossen@broadcom.com>
> Date: Thu Apr 7 11:20:58 2011 +0200
>
> modules: Enabled dynamic debugging for staging modules
Hm, this is the patch I was thinking about yes. But as you point out:
> If we want to support out of tree modules with this, should we just nuke the
> whole check, or do we still want to prevent certain types of tainted kernels
> from using this stuff ?
I don't know, there was some reason we didn't want to run dynamic_debug
for "normal" tainted kernel modules, but I can't recall it at the
moment, sorry.
>
> (sidenote: it's not immediately obvious to me that this is the right patch,
> as dynamic debug & lockdep are separate things, though this was the only
> thing in kernel/module.c's history this year that sounds similar)
Perhaps the lockdep thing is totally different. I don't know about that
check.
thanks,
greg k-h
Reply to: