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
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
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 ta
...@redhat.com, Thomas
Gleixner t...@linutronix.de, David
Howells dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 johan
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 mathieu.desnoy
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:23:22 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:18 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:23:56 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au 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
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
Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net 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
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 going to push this in, and also mark it for stable.
Which patch or patches do you plan to pull, and which is marked for stable
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:
&g
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
- Original Message -
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt"
> > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers"
> > > Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo
> > > Molnar" , "Thomas
> > > Gleixner" , &
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
&g
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 going to pu
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:49:04 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > mutex_lock(_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_ERR(old);
> >
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:49:04 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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)
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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
Molnar mi...@redhat.com, Thomas
Gleixner t...@linutronix.de, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:54:54 AM
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 mathieu.desnoy
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:18 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 mathieu.desnoy
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:32:03 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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.
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.
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 23:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:39:18 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au 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
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 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
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 ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org writes:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org 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 ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org writes:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:39:18 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au 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
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
> > Rust
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,
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org writes:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au 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
, David
Howells dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 rost...@goodmis.org writes:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54
; ,
> "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 Ro
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
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
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.
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"
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
;
> , "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
, David Howells
dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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
, Ingo Molnar
mi...@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de, Rusty Russell
ru...@rustcorp.com.au, David Howells
dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints
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
the
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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
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 distros.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:41:30 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au 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
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:11:56 -0500
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org 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
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 the kernel?
Yes:
, Thomas Gleixner
t...@linutronix.de, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg
Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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
,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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
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
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org writes:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:27:38 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
Users have reported being unable to trace non-signed modules loaded
within a kernel supporting module signature.
;
> , "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
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:27:38 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
, David Howells
dhowe...@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
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 mi...@kernel.org 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 breaker' categories and we should not make it
easier for them to linger in a
* Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com 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
70 matches
Mail list logo
