Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752056AbaBMP2U (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:28:20 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.226]:56587 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751735AbaBMP2T (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:28:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:28:17 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Rusty Russell , David Howells , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Message-ID: <20140213102817.4bfd5eac@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1583293363.24361.1392304214094.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <1392074600-21977-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20140211072738.GA24232@gmail.com> <20140211234534.6bc34e57@gandalf.local.home> <1583293363.24361.1392304214094.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > ----- 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. > Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules, and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel? -- Steve -- 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/