Re: CONFIG_MARKERS

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 
> Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/