Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755253AbYAWDKW (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:10:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752517AbYAWDKK (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:10:10 -0500 Received: from tomts40.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.97]:49979 "EHLO tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751602AbYAWDKI (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:10:08 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAF8+lkdMROHU/2dsb2JhbACBV5ATmzo Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:10:05 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rusty Russell , Jon Masters , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: CONFIG_MARKERS Message-ID: <20080123031005.GA16766@Krystal> References: <1201029235.18144.62.camel@perihelion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 22:03:22 up 80 days, 8:08, 5 users, load average: 0.27, 0.11, 0.08 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1550 Lines: 42 * Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@redhat.com) wrote: > > Jon Masters writes: > > > I notice in module.c: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS > > if (!mod->taints) > > marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers, > > mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL); > > #endif > > > > Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? [...] > > I can't seem to find any discussion about this aspect. If this is the > intent, it seems misguided to me. There may instead be a relationship > to TAINT_FORCED_{RMMOD,MODULE}. Mathieu? > > - FChE On my part, its mostly a matter of not crashing the kernel when someone tries to force modprobe of a proprietary module (where the checksums doesn't match) on a kernel that supports the markers. Not doing so causes the markers to try to find the marker-specific information in struct module which doesn't exist and OOPSes. Christoph's point of view is rather more drastic than mine : it's not interesting for the kernel community to help proprietary modules writers, so it's a good idea not to give them marker support. (I CC'ed him so he can clarify his position). Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- 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/