On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> > - 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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/