linux-kernel - CONFIG

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1201029235.18144.62.camel@perihelion>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:13:55 -0500
From:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: CONFIG_MARKERS

Yo,

I notice in module.c:

#ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS
	if (!mod->taints)
		marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers,
			mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL);
#endif

Is this an attempt to not set a marker for proprietary modules? If so,
then this really should be the following conditional instead, because,
really we're not guaranteeing there won't be other taints (e.g. in RHEL
we already have the module signing patch, and then there's also the
TAINT_FORCED_MODULE, which arguably isn't a "taint" for markers):

#ifdef CONFIG_MARKERS
	if (!(mod->taints & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE))
		marker_update_probe_range(mod->markers,
			mod->markers + mod->num_markers, NULL, NULL);
#endif

Or am I missing something?

Jon.

--
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/