Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:32:42 +0000 (UTC) | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE |
| |
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > Cc: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers" > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Thomas Gleixner" > <tglx@linutronix.de>, "David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@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 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@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 simply use an "X". :-) > > I actually think "X" is appropriate. You want signed modules, but the > module being loaded doesn't know how to sign its name, so we simply use > an "X" for it (in the taint flag).
I like the "X" idea :) Will prepare an updated patch with it.
Thanks,
Mathieu
-- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
|  |