From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752644Ab3AUAkp (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:40:45 -0500 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:47907 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752495Ab3AUAko (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:40:44 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Rusty Russell Cc: Dave Jones , Josh Boyer , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MODSIGN: Add TAINT_NOKEY_MODULE Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:46:31 +0100 Message-ID: <13201196.eooFfVZZkZ@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.8.0-rc4; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <8738xvxv55.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20130104191205.GD27554@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20130117150202.GB32586@redhat.com> <8738xvxv55.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, January 21, 2013 10:30:22 AM Rusty Russell wrote: > Dave Jones writes: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:27:27AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > taint: add explicit flag to show whether lock dep is still OK. > > > > > > Fix up all callers as they were before, with make one change: an > > > unsigned module taints the kernel, but doesn't turn off lockdep. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell > > > > This made my brain itch a little until I got to the bottom of the > > patch and saw the new definition of add_taint. Perhaps instead of > > false/true, we have LOCKDEP_LIVES/LOCKDEP_DIES or similar defines > > to make it clearer what's actually happening without having to > > go read the function ? > > The reason I didn't do that is because it's theoretically more than > lockdep: it's anything which relies on kernel integrity. > > Then I got the true/false thing mixed up myself, so I think you're right > :) > > BTW, ACPI people: those TAINT_OVERRIDDEN_ACPI_TABLE taints were > disabling lockdep: is that overzealous? I think so, although it's quite difficult to say what the intention was at this point. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.