linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ??] Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:27:11 +0100
From:	Gianluca Alberici <gianluca@...networks.biz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ??] Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:27:41 -0700
>Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
>>
>>For ndiswrapper, don't set the module->taints flags,
>>just set the kernel global tainted flag.
>>This should allow ndiswrapper to continue to use GPL symbols.
>>Not tested.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
>>---
>> kernel/module.c |    2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>--- linux-2619-rc3-pv.orig/kernel/module.c
>>+++ linux-2619-rc3-pv/kernel/module.c
>>@@ -1718,7 +1718,7 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
>> 	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
>> 
>> 	if (strcmp(mod->name, "ndiswrapper") == 0)
>>-		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>>+		add_taint(TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>> 	if (strcmp(mod->name, "driverloader") == 0)
>> 		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
>> 
>>    
>>
>
>Could someone please test this for us
>  
>

tested on rc2-mm2. It works.

I think it would be really good to hear somebody from the ndiswrapper 
group about this thread. During these 6 months (?) i believe both the 
kernel and ndiswrapper could go very far with a good collaboration.

Another thing: shouldnt be more efficent and readable to remove those 
"if ((strcmp...." from modules.c and to put all the tainted modules 
names into a separate source file into, say, a string array ? What if we 
had 250 tainted modules ?

And finally, it seems to me that ideas are not perfectly clear about 
what Linux should / should not do in respect to

- GPLed
- NON GPLed
- (???) GPLed

drivers. I believe policies and potential problems should be cristal 
clear before making any implementation.

Regards,

Gianluca
-
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/