On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:41:59PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote: > > The concern I would have in allowing tainted modules is that we are > > relying on a specific format for the dynamic debug section in the > > compiled module. For example, if a module was built with a format with an old > > section, we could potentially get confused. This can be solved with > > versioning, but that adds extra complexity. We can of course also make > > sure we don't change the format... > > I wouldn't worry about that at all. If you try to load a kernel module > that was not built against the kernel you are running, all bets are off > and lots of bad things can happen in other areas. > > > Notice that tracepoints, which also rely on a specific module format, > > also employ a taint flag check. > > Ok, but TAINT_CRAP shouldn't be part of that check, right? > Right, allowing -staging drivers (which are part of the kernel tree) to make use of dynamic debug facility seems reasonable. thanks, -Jason _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
