Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE

[Rusty Russell]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
> Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree modules, so not tempted unless I see
>> a bug report indicating a concrete problem.  Then we can discuss...
>
> As I replied in another email, this is a concrete problem, and affects
> in-tree kernel modules.
>
> If you have the following in your .config:
>
> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y
> # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is not set
> # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL is not set

This means you've set the "I will arrange my own module signing" config
option:

	  Sign all modules during make modules_install. Without this option,
	  modules must be signed manually, using the scripts/sign-file tool.

comment "Do not forget to sign required modules with scripts/sign-file"
	depends on MODULE_SIG_FORCE && !MODULE_SIG_ALL

Then you didn't do that.  You broke it, you get to keep both pieces.

Again: is there an actual valid use case?
Rusty.
--
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/