Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ingo Molnar"
> <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Howells"
> <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> 
> 
[...]
> But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a
> module to be loaded that is not signed, then you still get that
> "forced" module taint, which is the same one as loading a module from
> an older kernel into a newer kernel. It's a different problem, and I
> can see having a different taint flag be more informative to kernel
> developers in general. I would welcome that change with or without
> letting tracepoints be set for that module.

There is one important inaccuracy in your explanation above: a
kernel supporting signed modules, but not enforcing "sig_force",
can load unsigned modules with a simple modprobe or insmod, without
any "--force" argument. Therefore, tainting the module as
"TAINT_FORCED_MODULE" is misleading.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/