On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > Yes it is. But I thought the existing code was intending to taint the > kernel (that's what it does), so it would really help to identify why it > tainted the kernel, by calling add_taint_module instead of add_taint. I > didn't put the existing match in there...don't shoot the messenger :)
So, it's the same thing as in year 2006. Good intentions, unexpected side effects, and a long discussion. > > - ndiswrapper needs GPL-only symbols > > Another fix would be for ndiswrapper to explicitly set the taint when it > loads a tainted driver? Or do we just want to go back to globally > "tainting" the kernel without assigning the blame to any module? It taints the kernel, but not the module. I could add tainting the module to the ndiswrapper code, but it would reply on the internals of the "struct module". And I think we really don't want modules tainting and untainting themselves by changing THIS_MODULE->taints. It's a Pandora's box that's better kept closed. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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/
