[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32308.1201199261@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:27:41 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary Modules
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:47:04 EST, Mathieu Desnoyers said:
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.
I can live with that - if anything, a force-loaded GPL module deserves to lose
even more than a non-GPL module built against the current kernel. Quite
frankly, given that one of the reasons given for not liking closed modules is
"it's not maintainable", you'd *expect* that the infrastructure for allowing
a force-load of a module would have been thrown out entirely - is there anything
more unmaintainable than a module you *know* was built against different headers
and thus is using the wrong offsets for things?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists