[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWpwhe1ioxp_E6HOz1TQHOOat2pcGjGev2_baqsjvjagA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:50:39 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 01/12] taint: Introduce a new taint flag (insecure)
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:43 AM Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>
> For testing (or root-only) purposes, the new flag will serve to tag the
> kernel taint accurately.
>
> When adding a new feature support, patches need to be incrementally
> applied and tested with temporal parameters. Currently, there is no flag
> for this usage.
I don't object to this patch per se, but it seems unnecessary to me.
Especially since, once the whole series is applied, this code is again
unused.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists