linux-kernel - Re: Dumping the checksums in a module

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]

Message-ID: <4677EACF.2000202@free.fr>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:40:15 +0200
From:	John Sigler <linux.kernel@...e.fr>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dumping the checksums in a module

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:59 +0200, John Sigler wrote:
>
>> As far as I understand (which is not very far), if I define
>> CONFIG_MODVERSIONS,
> 
> just don't enable modversions.. it doesn't provide you any real safety
> at all..... and it makes your build a LOT slower.

I'm confused. What is the consensus on MODVERSIONS around here?
How many people share your views?

I was under the impression MODVERSIONS was a good thing(TM).

If I don't enable CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, then I'll have to recompile my 
out-of-tree modules every time I upgrade the kernel, even if I'm just 
upgrading from 2.6.20.7 to 2.6.20.8, unless I force the insertion.

I also have a few binary modules. If I force the insertion, I won't know 
they have become binary incompatible until they blow up later, or, 
worse, lead to silent corruption.

Please correct any and all misconceptions.

Regards.
-
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/