Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:39:26 -0500 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [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
|  |