On 2/5/19 1:21 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 18:42:29 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Chang S. Bae <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> For testing (or root-only) purposes, the new flag will serve to tag the >>> kernel taint accurately. >>> >>> When adding a new feature support, patches need to be incrementally >>> applied and tested with temporal parameters. Currently, there is no flag >>> for this usage. >> >> I think this should be reviewed by someone like akpm. akpm, for >> background, this is part of an x86 patch series. If only part of the >> series is applied, the kernel will be blatantly insecure (but still >> functional and useful for testing and bisection), and this taint flag >> will be set if this kernel is booted. With the whole series applied, >> there are no users of the taint flag in the kernel. >> >> Do you think this is a good idea? > > What does "temporal parameters" mean? A complete description of this > testing process would help. > > I sounds a bit strange. You mean it assumes that people will partially > apply the series to test its functionality? That would be inconvenient.
Ack. I don't think we need to (or should) worry about that kind of muckup. > - Can the new and now-unused taint flag be removed again at > end-of-series? > > - It would be a lot more convenient if we had some means of testing > after the whole series is applied, on a permanent basis - some > debugfs flag, perhaps? > -- ~Randy
