|From:||Rusty Russell <rusty-AT-rustcorp.com.au>|
|To:||Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE|
|Date:||Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:21:19 +1030|
|Cc:||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-AT-efficios.com>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>, David Howells <dhowells-AT-redhat.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh-AT-linuxfoundation.org>|
Steven Rostedt <email@example.com> writes: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030 > Rusty Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree modules, so not tempted unless I see >> a bug report indicating a concrete problem. Then we can discuss... > > As I replied in another email, this is a concrete problem, and affects > in-tree kernel modules. > > If you have the following in your .config: > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y > # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is not set > # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL is not set This means you've set the "I will arrange my own module signing" config option: Sign all modules during make modules_install. Without this option, modules must be signed manually, using the scripts/sign-file tool. comment "Do not forget to sign required modules with scripts/sign-file" depends on MODULE_SIG_FORCE && !MODULE_SIG_ALL Then you didn't do that. You broke it, you get to keep both pieces. Again: is there an actual valid use case? Rusty.
Copyright © 2014, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds