Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary Modules

From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Date: Thu Jan 24 2008 - 13:28:51 EST


On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:47:04 EST, Mathieu Desnoyers said:
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.

I can live with that - if anything, a force-loaded GPL module deserves to lose
even more than a non-GPL module built against the current kernel. Quite
frankly, given that one of the reasons given for not liking closed modules is
"it's not maintainable", you'd *expect* that the infrastructure for allowing
a force-load of a module would have been thrown out entirely - is there anything
more unmaintainable than a module you *know* was built against different headers
and thus is using the wrong offsets for things?

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature