lls" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> , "Kay Sievers"
>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:13:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> Takashi Iwai writes:
> > At Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:30:47
At Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:43:21 +1030,
Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai writes:
> > At Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:30:47 +1030,
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> Steven Rostedt writes:
> >> > Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
> >> >
> >> > Rusty,
> >> >
> >> > If you
Takashi Iwai writes:
> At Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:30:47 +1030,
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> Steven Rostedt writes:
>> > Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
>> >
>> > Rusty,
>> >
>> > If you want to take this, please add my
>> > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
>>
>> Thanks, I
At Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:30:47 +1030,
Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Steven Rostedt writes:
> > Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
> >
> > Rusty,
> >
> > If you want to take this, please add my
> > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
>
> Thanks, I updated my copy and have pushed thi
Steven Rostedt writes:
> Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
>
> Rusty,
>
> If you want to take this, please add my
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
Thanks, I updated my copy and have pushed this into modules-next.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
tman"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:40:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
Good point, I'll keep in mind to increment patch
Mathieu, you should have added a v2 to the subject ie: [PATCH V2]
Rusty,
If you want to take this, please add my
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
-- Steve
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:18:26 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
> within a ker
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:23:56 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The one that I replied to. I can't pull the module patch unless I get
> > an ack from Rusty.
>
> Ah, I applied it in my tree. Happy for you to take it though; here's
> the variant with an Acked-by from me instead of Signed-off-by if y
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:18 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The one that I replied to. I can't pull the module patch unless I get
> > an ack from Rusty.
>
> Do you mean the internal API semantic change you propose for tracepoints ?
> If yes, then how do you consider this a fix worthy
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:23:22 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > Why? This is not a normal activity to for the user. You seem to have a
> > few specific users, but those are exceptions, and this has nothing to
> > do with normal kernel developer view.
>
> The very fact that you present
ot; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:32:03 + (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>
> > &g
r" , "David
> Howells" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
>
> 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 writes:
> > Going on a tange
l@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo
>> > Molnar" , "Thomas
>> > Gleixner" , "Rusty Russell" ,
>> > "David Howells" ,
>> > "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
>> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:54:54 AM
>> > Subj
Johannes Berg 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
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:32:03 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > The real answer to this is to enabled the tracepoints on module load,
> > with a module parameter. We've talked about this before, and I also
> > think there's some patches out there that do this. (I remember creating
> >
t; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:54:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:49:04 + (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:18 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The one that I replied to. I can't pull the module patch unless I get
> > an ack from Rusty.
>
> Do you mean the internal API semantic change you propose for tracepoints ?
> If yes, then how do you consider this a fix worthy
t; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:55:36 + (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> >
ot; , "Thomas
> > Gleixner" , "Rusty Russell" ,
> > "David Howells" ,
> > "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:54:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> > TAINT
t; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:54:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
[...]
(keeping discussion for later, as I'm busy at a client site)
> For now, I'm g
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:49:04 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > mutex_lock(&tracepoints_mutex);
> > old = tracepoint_add_probe(name, probe, data);
> > @@ -388,9 +393,15 @@ int tracepoint_probe_register(const char *name, void
> > *probe, void *data)
> > return PTR_ER
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 23:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:39:18 +1030
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > >> comment "Do not forget to sign required modules with scripts/sign-file"
> > >> depends on MODULE_SIG_FORCE && !MODULE_SIG_ALL
> > >>
> > >> Then you didn't do that. You
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:39:18 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> comment "Do not forget to sign required modules with scripts/sign-file"
> >>depends on MODULE_SIG_FORCE && !MODULE_SIG_ALL
> >>
> >> Then you didn't do that. You broke it, you get to keep both pieces.
> >
> > In this case we shoul
Steven Rostedt writes:
> I need to clean out my email box. This email was hidden in between a
> pile of other crap email.
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:21:19 +1030
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> Steven Rostedt writes:
>> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
>> > Rusty Russell wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I
I need to clean out my email box. This email was hidden in between a
pile of other crap email.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:21:19 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Steven Rostedt writes:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree module
s" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:51:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> Steven Rostedt writes:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
> > Rusty
Steven Rostedt writes:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>
>> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree modules, so not tempted unless I see
>> a bug report indicating a concrete problem. Then we can discuss...
>
> As I replied in another email, this is a concrete problem, a
Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
within a kernel supporting module signature.
This is caused by tracepoint.c:tracepoint_module_coming() refusing to
take into account tracepoints sitting within force-loaded modules
(TAINT_FORCED_MODULE). The reason for this check,
; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:45:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:41:30 + (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>
> &g
ot;
> , "David Howells" , "Greg
> Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:24:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:11:56 -0500
> Steven Rostedt
On 02/13/2014 04:44 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:36:35 -0500
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
>
>>
>> rostedt wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules,
>>> and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint t
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:11:56 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Although, is "N" the best letter to use for this taint? Not sure, but
> everything else I can think of looks to be already taken. Maybe "X"?
> You know. When you sign your name and don't know how to spell it, you
> just simply use an "X"
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree modules, so not tempted unless I see
> a bug report indicating a concrete problem. Then we can discuss...
As I replied in another email, this is a concrete problem, and affects
in-tree kernel modules.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:41:30 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Yes, exactly, presuming that by "supporting" you mean CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y.
> Loading an unsigned module then taints the kernel, and taints the module
> with TAINT_FORCED_MODULE even though "modprobe --force" was never used.
OK,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:36:35 -0500
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
>
> rostedt wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules,
> > and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel?
>
> Yes: this is the default for several
uot; ,
> "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:28:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 + (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> >
rostedt wrote:
> [...]
> Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules,
> and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel?
Yes: this is the default for several distros.
- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
ot;
> > , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Rusty Russell"
> > , "David Howells"
> > , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> > TA
;
> , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
>
[...]
> But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a
> module t
Steven Rostedt writes:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:27:38 +0100
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>
>> * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>> > Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
>> > within a kernel supporting module signature.
>>
>> External modules should strive to get out of
;
> , "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new
> TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:27:38 +0100
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Mat
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:27:38 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
> > within a kernel supporting module signature.
>
> External modules should strive to get out of the 'crap' and
> 'felony law breake
* Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
> within a kernel supporting module signature.
External modules should strive to get out of the 'crap' and
'felony law breaker' categories and we should not make it
easier for them to linger in a b
Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
within a kernel supporting module signature.
This is caused by tracepoint.c:tracepoint_module_coming() refusing to
take into account tracepoints sitting within force-loaded modules
(TAINT_FORCED_MODULE). The reason for this check,
44 matches
Mail list logo
