Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4020 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] message: unsupported module, tainting kernel
  • From: Anders Johansson <andjoh@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:16:54 +0200
  • Message-id: <200410060916.54597.andjoh@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Wednesday, 6 October 2004 09.11, - Edwin - wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 October 2004 15:28, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 6 October 2004 08.09, - Edwin - wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 06 October 2004 14:42, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07.33, - Edwin - wrote:
> > >
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > > > http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-18
> > > >
> > > > The "unsupported module" tag is a SUSE extension, it
> > > > isn't in the kernel.org kernel. Even GPL modules can be
> > > > "tainted" in this scheme. The place to read more about it
> > > > is in /usr/src/linux/README.SUSE (you'll need the kernel
> > > > sources installed) Section "SUPPORTED VS: UNSUPPORTED
> > > > MODULES"
> > >
> > > Hmm... did you even check that link? ;)
> >
> > Yes I did. Did you read what I wrote?
>
> Yes :)
>
> > To repeat, with emphasis added: ---> *The "unsupported
> > module" tag* <--- is a SUSE extension. It is NOT part of the
> > kernel.org kernel. The kernel.org kernel only taints a kernel
> > if it isn't GPLed. SUSE's kernels introduce the concept of
> > module support. In other words, a GPL module that is not
> > supplied by SUSE will taint the kernel with the message in
> > the original mail.
>
> Yes, I understand what you meant

It doesn't appear that you do

> (or what the README) meant
> but...
>
> > > Anyway, it's *not* peculiar to SUSE. IOW, even if you're
> > > using a kernel compiled by, let's say Red Hat, you'll still
> > > see that message.
> >
> > No I won't. I just checked, and red hat has not adopted that
> > suse extension, at least not in fedora core 2. I have no idea
> > what they do in their RHEL version.
>
> I just did a quick googling and it seems like the other distros
> have them too ;)
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=25401
> http://www.applia.fr/contents/knoppix64.html

Those discuss non-GPL modules, not "unsupported modules"

>
> Besides, IIRC, I had *exactly* the same wordings when
> I compiled the ASUS LAN drivers (found on the ASUS site)
> on the machine I'm using when it was still on RH9. Btw, a
> similar wording is found when you're using VMWare:
>
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/shrike-list/2004-February/msg00251.html

that says "module license unspecified" not "unsupported module"

>
> You might want to check this as well:
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/comment/reply/3239/9383

that discusses a binary only module.

OK, it seems we have a misunderstanding here

I am not claiming that kernel tainting as such is suse specific. I know all
linux kernels that aren't too old have that concept

HOWEVER: All other kernels only get tainted when you load a module that isn't
GPLed (ok, yeah, if you force-load a module too). ONLY! No link you have
posted have said anything about a GPL module being capable of tainting the
kernel. They all discuss binary-only or otherwise non-GPL modules. You see
the difference?

SUSE has introduced a new concept: module support. This means that they tag
their modules in a specific way, and when you load a third party module that
does not have that tag, the kernel gets tainted and you see the message. This
is so SUSE can easily see if you have done something that they don't
officially support.

So, to reiterate, it is NOT about tainting, it is about this particular kind
of tainting.

>
> Later, if I find a way to check it on RHEL (I have version 3),
> I'll check if the words come out exactly as it was on RH9.

Please do, and when you do, don't look just at the word "taint", look for the
words "unsupported module"

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups