Re: [PATCH ??] Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

From: Gianluca Alberici
Date: Sun Oct 29 2006 - 06:19:29 EST


Andrew Morton wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:27:41 -0700
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>

For ndiswrapper, don't set the module->taints flags,
just set the kernel global tainted flag.
This should allow ndiswrapper to continue to use GPL symbols.
Not tested.

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/module.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-2619-rc3-pv.orig/kernel/module.c
+++ linux-2619-rc3-pv/kernel/module.c
@@ -1718,7 +1718,7 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));

if (strcmp(mod->name, "ndiswrapper") == 0)
- add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
+ add_taint(TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
if (strcmp(mod->name, "driverloader") == 0)
add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);




Could someone please test this for us



tested on rc2-mm2. It works.

I think it would be really good to hear somebody from the ndiswrapper group about this thread. During these 6 months (?) i believe both the kernel and ndiswrapper could go very far with a good collaboration.

Another thing: shouldnt be more efficent and readable to remove those "if ((strcmp...." from modules.c and to put all the tainted modules names into a separate source file into, say, a string array ? What if we had 250 tainted modules ?

And finally, it seems to me that ideas are not perfectly clear about what Linux should / should not do in respect to

- GPLed
- NON GPLed
- (???) GPLed

drivers. I believe policies and potential problems should be cristal clear before making any implementation.

Regards,

Gianluca
-
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/