----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rusty Russell" <[email protected]> > To: "Johannes Berg" <[email protected]>, "Steven Rostedt" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]>, "Mathieu Desnoyers" > <[email protected]>, > [email protected], "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]>, "Thomas > Gleixner" <[email protected]>, "David > Howells" <[email protected]>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:51:50 PM > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new > TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE > > Johannes Berg <[email protected]> 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.
Hi Rusty, That RFC patch was superseded by a newer version, posted in a separate thread. There were documentation and other printout sites to update. I posted the non-RFC version of the patch here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/14/4 (you should have it in your inbox) Please let me know if I need to repost it. Thanks! Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
