What does tainting actually mean?
From: Nigel Cunningham
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 23:12:09 EST
Hi all.
I'm probably going to regret this, but seeing the current discussion on
binary modules makes me wonder:
What does tainting actually mean?
What I mean is, how does it help to know that a kernel is tainted? When
I'm working on Software Suspend and someone sends me an oops, I don't
really care whether it's marked as tainted or not. For all I know, even if
it's not tainted, they may have thrown in half a dozen different patches
aside from Suspend, any one of which could be playing a role in the
appearance of the oops. It doesn't help me to know that the kernel was
tainted. It helps me to know what the non-standard additions are (and how
the kernel was configured), regardless of whether the additions mark the
kernel tainted or not.
Of course I realise at the same time that maybe tainting has nothing to do
with saying 'This isn't an unmodified tree' and everything to do with
saying 'This kernel has had non-GPL code interacting with it'. If that's
the case, I don't see the relevance of saying (as Paul did a little while
ago):
"You deceived maintainers who receive "untainted" bug reports."
Indeed, the surrounding lines seem to make it clear that the real issue is
not fixing bugs but politics. Thus my question: What does tainting
actually mean?
Regards,
Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
C/- Westminster Presbyterian Church Belconnen
61 Templeton Street, Cook, ACT 2614, Australia.
+61 (2) 6251 7727 (wk)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/