Re: [PATCH 0/4] module: add support for unsafe, tainting parameters

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> This is a generic version of Daniel's patch [1] letting us have unsafe
>> module parameters (experimental, debugging, testing, etc.) that taint
>> the kernel when set. Quoting Daniel,
>
> OK, I think the idea is fine, but we'll probably only want this for
> a few types (eg. int and bool).  So for the moment I prefer a more
> naive approach.
>
> Does this work for you?

Can you please discuss this with yourself from a few months back?
We've done the general version since you suggested that just doing it
for int is a bit lame ;-) And I actually agreed so asked Jani to look
into that.

http://mid.mail-archive.com/87r46gywul.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"If this is a good idea, you can write a macro module_param_unsafe_named
which is a general wrapper."

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
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/