Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Grzegorz Piotr Jaskiewicz]

Willy Tarreau wrote:

> What would be smarter would be to try to understand why they do this. At
> the moment, it seems to me that their only problem is to taint the kernel.
> Why ? I don't this that any old modutils/module-utils found in any distros
> don't load properly such modules. So perhaps they only want not to taint
> the kernel because it appears dirty to their customers who will not receive
> any more support from LKML. So perhaps what we really need is to add a new
> MODULE_SUPPORT field stating where to get support from in case of bugs,
> oopses or panics on a tainted kernel. Thus, the module author would be able
> to insert something such as "support_XXX@xxxxxxxxxx" which will be displayed
> on each oops/panic/etc... Even if this is a long list because the customer
> uses connexant, nvidia, checkpoint and I don't know what, at least he will
> get 3 email addresses for his support. And it might reassure these authors
> to know that the customer will ask them before asking us with our automatic
> replies "unload your binary modules...".
>
> Anyway it now seems like strings will have to be matched on their lenghts...
>  
And they will put linux-kernek@xxxxxxxxxxx(.org) there :-)
You never know...

--
GJ

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/