Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:28:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:28:33 -0400 Received: from 157-151.nwinfo.net ([216.187.157.151]:25739 "EHLO mail.morcant.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:28:16 -0400 Message-ID: <34710.24.255.76.12.1002745701.squirrel@webmail.morcant.org> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Tainted Modules Help Notices From: "Morgan Collins [Ax0n]" To: tkhoadfdsaf@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, viro@math.psu.edu, kaos@ocs.com.au, sirmorcant@morcant.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.0.6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I was under the same impression about the module licensing tagging. I > had read that it was suppose to be for maintainability (.i.e. source available so > kernel gods can debug) and not to enforce ideological conformity. Now I read that > anything not licensed under the GPL, including BSD or simply public domain source > code, will taint my kernel and modprobe complains about non-GPL stuff including > parport_pc which apparently did not have a license. Should I expect a Linux kernel > KGB to show up next? > I think what has happened here is a little bit of a misunderstanding. I think that the modprobe source and the kernel source just aren't in sync with the development of the new (re DEVELOPMENTAL) MOD_LICENSE() implementation. Weither or not the BSD-NAC is GPL compatible has already been determined, as it's in the kernel and the lead developers have said so. I trust them, they'll get sued if they don't look at things like that. Modprobe told me a BSD module was tainted, I assumed that ment it was incompatible with the kernel which is GPLed. I shouldn't trust everything I read :> The problem lies in modprobe not having it in it's list of licenses to not mark as tainted. When I modprobe ppp_deflate, it does not fail to load, it simply warned me that my kernel would be tainted. What does having a tainted kernel mean? It is to tell kernel debuggers if this is a clean kernel or if anything unusual has occurred. > Furthermore I have to agree with the previous poster. Any module could > easily lie to MODULE_LICENSE about its licensing terms and that would not make it's > source automatically "free" and GPLable so I am now wondering if this tainting > mechanism is of any use at all. > If the purpose was to discriminate against licensing, I would agree. But since non-compatible source is not distributed with the kernel, and the mechanism is for debugging, what is the purpose of lying to the kernel? To confuse debuggers? No point in that. > Just out of curiosity do all of these license tags in the modules take > up any permanent kernel memory, especially in a heavily modularize system? > A grep of /proc/kcore only showed the MODULE_LICESE in this email, and the scrollback buffer in my xterm, so I don't think so. -- Morgan Collins [Ax0n] http://sirmorcant.morcant.org Software is something like a machine, and something like mathematics, and something like language, and something like thought, and art, and information.... but software is not in fact any of those other things. - 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/