On Wed 2016-12-21 15:42:05, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Yes, I know that usually out-of-tree modules are on their own.
> However, this one may require a rethink..
>
> (Sorry for not catching this sooner, I hadn't tried to deal with the
> affected module since this patch hit linux-next in next-20161128)
>
> commit 7fd8329ba502ef76dd91db561c7aed696b2c7720
> Author: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com>
> Date: Wed Sep 21 13:47:22 2016 +0200
>
> taint/module: Clean up global and module taint flags handling
>
> Contains this chunk:
>
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -506,6 +506,15 @@ extern enum system_states {
> #define TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE 13
> #define TAINT_SOFTLOCKUP 14
> #define TAINT_LIVEPATCH 15
> +#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT 16
> +
> +struct taint_flag {
> + char true; /* character printed when tainted */
> + char false; /* character printed when not tainted */
> + bool module; /* also show as a per-module taint flag */
> +};
>
> and hilarity ensues when an out-of-tree module has this:
>
> # ifndef true
> # define true (1)
> # endif
> # ifndef false
> # define false (0)
> # endif
>
> My proposed fix: change true/false to tainted/untainted. If this
> is agreeable, I'll code and submit the fix.
Great catch! I did not have a good feeling about the names. But
I did not found this problem and kept them to reduce changes
in the code.
If we change it, I would go even further and make the purpose
clear, e.g. use char_tainted/char_untainted. The names feel
like booleans wihtout the char_ prefix.
Best Regards,
Petr
