From: "Morgan Collins [Ax0n]" <sirmorcant@morcant.org>
To: tkhoadfdsaf@hotmail.com
Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, viro@math.psu.edu,
kaos@ocs.com.au, sirmorcant@morcant.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Tainted Modules Help Notices
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:28:21 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34710.24.255.76.12.1002745701.squirrel@webmail.morcant.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OE64YU5ts1Tjkw1BzCf0000708c@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <OE64YU5ts1Tjkw1BzCf0000708c@hotmail.com>
> I was under the same impression about the module licensing tagging. I
> had read that it was suppose to be for maintainability (.i.e. source available so
> kernel gods can debug) and not to enforce ideological conformity. Now I read that
> anything not licensed under the GPL, including BSD or simply public domain source
> code, will taint my kernel and modprobe complains about non-GPL stuff including
> parport_pc which apparently did not have a license. Should I expect a Linux kernel
> KGB to show up next?
>
I think what has happened here is a little bit of a misunderstanding.
I think that the modprobe source and the kernel source just aren't in sync with the
development of the new (re DEVELOPMENTAL) MOD_LICENSE() implementation.
Weither or not the BSD-NAC is GPL compatible has already been determined, as it's in the
kernel and the lead developers have said so. I trust them, they'll get sued if they don't
look at things like that. Modprobe told me a BSD module was tainted, I assumed that ment
it was incompatible with the kernel which is GPLed. I shouldn't trust everything I read :>
The problem lies in modprobe not having it in it's list of licenses to not mark as tainted.
When I modprobe ppp_deflate, it does not fail to load, it simply warned me that my kernel
would be tainted. What does having a tainted kernel mean? It is to tell kernel
debuggers if this is a clean kernel or if anything unusual has occurred.
> Furthermore I have to agree with the previous poster. Any module could
> easily lie to MODULE_LICENSE about its licensing terms and that would not make it's
> source automatically "free" and GPLable so I am now wondering if this tainting
> mechanism is of any use at all.
>
If the purpose was to discriminate against licensing, I would agree. But since
non-compatible source is not distributed with the kernel, and the mechanism is for
debugging, what is the purpose of lying to the kernel? To confuse debuggers? No point in that.
> Just out of curiosity do all of these license tags in the modules take
> up any permanent kernel memory, especially in a heavily modularize system?
>
A grep of /proc/kcore only showed the MODULE_LICESE in this email, and the scrollback
buffer in my xterm, so I don't think so.
--
Morgan Collins [Ax0n] http://sirmorcant.morcant.org
Software is something like a machine, and something like mathematics, and something like
language, and something like thought, and art, and information.... but software is not in
fact any of those other things.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-10 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-10 8:06 Morgan Collins [Ax0n]
2001-10-10 8:20 ` David Woodhouse
2001-10-10 8:24 ` Morgan Collins [Ax0n]
2001-10-10 8:31 ` David Woodhouse
2001-10-10 13:50 ` Keith Owens
2001-10-10 13:59 ` Alexander Viro
2001-10-10 14:01 ` Keith Owens
2001-10-10 17:30 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-10 18:18 ` David Woodhouse
2001-10-10 20:06 ` Concerned Programmer
2001-10-10 20:28 ` Morgan Collins [Ax0n] [this message]
2001-10-10 21:28 ` Keith Owens
2001-10-10 22:03 ` Anthony DeRobertis
2001-10-11 7:27 ` David Woodhouse
2001-10-10 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-10 23:02 ` Juan Quintela
2001-10-10 23:28 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-10-10 22:29 ` Rob Landley
2001-10-11 2:48 ` 2.4.11 UDF Morgan Collins [Ax0n]
2001-10-11 3:26 ` Craig Whitmore
2001-10-11 8:50 ` Tainted Modules Help Notices Andreas Ferber
2001-10-11 9:25 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-11 9:35 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-10-11 9:41 ` Pekka Pietikäinen
2001-10-11 9:48 ` Syed Mohammad Talha
2001-10-11 10:09 ` Concerned Programmer
2001-10-11 10:37 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-11 22:42 ` David Schwartz
2001-10-11 23:40 ` John Alvord
2001-10-12 1:12 ` David Schwartz
2001-10-12 1:32 ` Robert Love
2001-10-11 12:10 ` James Sutherland
2001-10-10 14:13 ` David Woodhouse
2001-10-10 14:18 ` Alexander Viro
2001-10-10 13:10 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-10 14:06 Bonds, Deanna
2001-10-10 14:24 ` Arjan van de Ven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=34710.24.255.76.12.1002745701.squirrel@webmail.morcant.org \
--to=sirmorcant@morcant.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tkhoadfdsaf@hotmail.com \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®