linux-kernel - Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, bug: Exclude TAINT_FIRMWARE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:13:18 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, bug: Exclude
 TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND from disabling lockdep


* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > My primary worry is to not have lockdep active when there's 
> > binary modules in a system - can TAINT_OOT_MODULE be set but 
> > TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE not set for non-GPL modules?
> 
> Yes. I imagine anyone wanting to use lockdep with binary modules
> would just lie anyway.
> 
> > If not, and if TAINT_OOT_MODULE set and TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE 
> > cleared guarantees the GPL-ness of the module then i have no 
> > problem with keeping lockdep active in that case.
> 
> Insofar as nobody is making their code line about licenses.

Fair enough - so i agree that we can allow OOT_MODULE's with 
lockdep and thus revert the lockdep-disabling effect of:

 2449b8ba0745: module,bug: Add TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag for modules not built in-tree

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/