On Thu March 15 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > The taint message is there so the kernel developers know which bug > reports they can ignore because only the binary module vendor has all the > source code needed to fix them. It also taints in different ways if you > force various things, if a memory error is detected and the like to help > classify bugs. > > If we wanted to enforce arbitary control over what you stick in the kernel > we'd have implemented digitally signed modules and code that keeps going > back over the kernel making sure it hasn't been adjusted and each block > still checksums the same - like say Vista does. I would like some clarification. Is the above what the whole dispute is about? A warning message? -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
