On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:17:24PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:04:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:51:42PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > > On 2011-10-25 18:05 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 11:38 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > > > > This patch prevents the use of lockdep for debugging out of tree > > > > > modules, which is rather mean. > > > > > > > > It was already disabled for staging modules, which seems equally > > > > unhelpful. > > > > > > This is not the case: lockdep works fine with staging modules. > > > > Yes, that was fixed a few kernel versions ago. > > > > Now you might want to update that fix for the TAINT_OOT_MODULE flag as > > well, if you feel it is needed. > > I'm assuming you mean this patch ? > > commit 7816c45bf13255157c00fb8aca86cb64d825e878 > Author: Roland Vossen <rvos...@broadcom.com> > Date: Thu Apr 7 11:20:58 2011 +0200 > > modules: Enabled dynamic debugging for staging modules
Hm, this is the patch I was thinking about yes. But as you point out: > If we want to support out of tree modules with this, should we just nuke the > whole check, or do we still want to prevent certain types of tainted kernels > from using this stuff ? I don't know, there was some reason we didn't want to run dynamic_debug for "normal" tainted kernel modules, but I can't recall it at the moment, sorry. > > (sidenote: it's not immediately obvious to me that this is the right patch, > as dynamic debug & lockdep are separate things, though this was the only > thing in kernel/module.c's history this year that sounds similar) Perhaps the lockdep thing is totally different. I don't know about that check. thanks, greg k-h -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111025205410.ga7...@kroah.com
