[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46923E37.9010303@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:55:03 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Please revert 21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7
Alan Cox wrote:
> 2.6.22's behaviour is the bug. 2.6.21 you couldn't load random binary
> crap into the kernel without logging a taint. 2.6.22 you can. This means
> every single 2.6.22 bug report has to be assumed to be caused by binary
> module crap as a starting point which slows down debug immensely.
Er, what? What do you mean by "load random binary crap"? Are you
worried that a malicious kernel module might modify paravirt_ops? How
is that different from a malicious module doing any of the infinite
other things a malicious module can do? A module will only register a
taint if its playing by the rules anyway, and a module playing by the
rules won't touch paravirt_ops directly.
J
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists