Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756262AbYAXS2s (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:28:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753026AbYAXS2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:28:33 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:33217 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751707AbYAXS2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:28:32 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Andrew Morton , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rusty Russell , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Jon Masters Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary Modules In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:47:04 EST." <20080124124703.GB32559@Krystal> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <1201029235.18144.62.camel@perihelion> <20080123031005.GA16766@Krystal> <1201061860.25284.28.camel@perihelion> <20080123131442.GA6562@redhat.com> <20080123144811.GA12296@Krystal> <27267.1201152358@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1201155569.25284.88.camel@perihelion> <20080124124703.GB32559@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1201199261_2846P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:27:41 -0500 Message-ID: <32308.1201199261@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1570 Lines: 36 --==_Exmh_1201199261_2846P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:47:04 EST, Mathieu Desnoyers said: > I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes > sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers > used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash > by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there > is an incorrect checksum. I can live with that - if anything, a force-loaded GPL module deserves to lose even more than a non-GPL module built against the current kernel. Quite frankly, given that one of the reasons given for not liking closed modules is "it's not maintainable", you'd *expect* that the infrastructure for allowing a force-load of a module would have been thrown out entirely - is there anything more unmaintainable than a module you *know* was built against different headers and thus is using the wrong offsets for things? --==_Exmh_1201199261_2846P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFHmNidcC3lWbTT17ARAlB/AJ9G25qJ0YSrYLH3CNGSSQmJvEx66QCeMzkw tRfCt1R06pgmjHqJ1G2rOJo= =UcNe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1201199261_2846P-- -- 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/