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

[Rusty Russell]

Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Going on a tangent here - our use case is using backported upstream
> kernel modules (https://backports.wiki.kernel.org/) for delivering a
> driver to people who decided that they absolutely need to run with some
> random kernel (e.g. 3.10) but we don't yet support all the driver
> features they want/need in the kernel they picked.

Ah, a user!  See, that's not the "I forgot to sign my modules" case the
others were complaining about.

> We push our code upstream as soon as we can and typically only diverge
> from upstream by a few patches, so saying things like "crap" or "felony
> law breaker" about out-of-tree modules in general makes me furious.

Appreciated and understood.

I have applied Mathieu's patch to my pending tree, with Ingo's Nack
recorded.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/