linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module: log OOT

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: <87d3b0dyj0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:22:51 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: log OOT_MODULE tainting

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:47:02 +0100 (CET), Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> > > Follow what we do with other taints and output a message into kernel ring 
> > > buffer once tainting a kernel because out-of-tree module is being loaded.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> > 
> > I don't like this, actually.  There's a wish among some distributions to
> > know that OOT modules are in use in panic messages, but not by others.
> > Certainly, there's no reason to warn the user.
> 
> I do get your point, but it seems to me that we are at least not 
> consistent here. Why would we then log messages in cases of 
> TAINT_FORCED_MODULE for example? The user knows that he has forced the 
> module load, right?

Agreed, we're not consistent at all.  But a forcing a module is such a
weird and risky thing to do, the user can ignore a warning message.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/