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:0.161 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site