lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
    On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:55:36 +0000 (UTC)
    Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
    > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
    > > Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Thomas
    > > Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, "David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
    > > "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@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)
    >
    > > 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 ?

    The one that I replied to. I can't pull the module patch unless I get
    an ack from Rusty.

    >
    > This thread is a RFC PATCH. I posted a separate more complete patch in
    > a separate thread marked [PATCH].

    Yeah, I'll post it out soon enough.

    -- Steve


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-02-24 20:41    [W:3.675 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site