From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:50:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:50:39 -0400 Received: from dns.lineo.fr ([194.250.46.228]:5116 "EHLO mailhost.lineo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:50:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:50:39 +0200 From: christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?barb=E9?= To: David Schwartz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.9-ac6 Message-ID: <20010905145039.A10655@pc8.lineo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1257554973.999687013@[169.254.198.40]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: ; from davids@webmaster.com on mer, sep 05, 2001 at 11:57:17 +0200 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.pre3 X-Operating-System: Debian SID GNU/Linux 2.4.9 on i686 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Would it not be possible with your scheme to package a closed source driver in an open source wrapper driver and then defeat your tainting technique. Is it legally possible to copyright a kind of magic number with a copyright allowing only it's used in open & public source driver ? Christophe Le mer, 05 sep 2001 11:57:17, David Schwartz a écrit : > > > >> I think, perhaps, the logic should be that a module > > >> shouldn't taint the kernel if: > > > >> 1) The user built the module from source on that machine, OR > > > >> 2) The module source is freely available without restriction > > > > I just realized two things. One, there's a strong argument > that this > > > should be an AND, not an OR. > > > And as all distributions would fail (1) in initial form, all > > distributions would result in tainted kernels. Is this the > > intent? > > They wouldn't taint because the kernel signature would match the > module > signatures. I provided more detail on one possible way this scheme would > work and it's not quite as simple as the summary above suggests. > > Basically, when you compile (or install) the kernel, a random > 'signature' > goes in. When you compile a module, the signature goes in too. You can > then > compare the module's signature to the kernel's signature to ensure they > were > compiled as a unit. Unfortunately, this doesn't ensure that the user has > the > source. > > I suppose, if the module source were freely available, then '2' > would > apply. If you keep it as an OR, then distributions wouldn't taint out of > the > box unless they included modules whose source distribution was limited. I > think this is what you want. > > DS > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > -- Christophe Barbé Software Engineer - christophe.barbe@lineo.fr Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group 42-46, rue Médéric - 92110 Clichy - France phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01 http://www.lineo.com