Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751778AbaBMPKS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:10:18 -0500 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:37242 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751414AbaBMPKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:10:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Rusty Russell , David Howells , Greg Kroah-Hartman Message-ID: <1583293363.24361.1392304214094.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20140211234534.6bc34e57@gandalf.local.home> References: <1392074600-21977-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20140211072738.GA24232@gmail.com> <20140211234534.6bc34e57@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [206.248.138.119] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.5_GA_5839 (ZimbraWebClient - FF27 (Linux)/8.0.5_GA_5839) Thread-Topic: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Thread-Index: Gx2hQKXgCVDx7Vmc35zxYj8zAgkLlA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Rostedt" > To: "Ingo Molnar" > Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" > , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Rusty Russell" , "David Howells" > , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE > > [...] > But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a > module to be loaded that is not signed, then you still get that > "forced" module taint, which is the same one as loading a module from > an older kernel into a newer kernel. It's a different problem, and I > can see having a different taint flag be more informative to kernel > developers in general. I would welcome that change with or without > letting tracepoints be set for that module. There is one important inaccuracy in your explanation above: a kernel supporting signed modules, but not enforcing "sig_force", can load unsigned modules with a simple modprobe or insmod, without any "--force" argument. Therefore, tainting the module as "TAINT_FORCED_MODULE" is misleading. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/