linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Remove the _GPL from the kernel_fpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 4 May 2019 04:28:17 +0200
From:   Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@...media-net.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Remove the _GPL from the kernel_fpu_begin/end()
 export


Am 04.05.2019 um 02:47 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> * Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 May 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't start this. We have everything _GPL that is used for FPU
>>> related code and only a few functions are exported because KVM needs it.
>> That's not completely true. There are a lot of static inlines out there,
>> which basically made it possible for external modules to use FPU (in some
>> way) when they had kernel_fpu_[begin|end]() available.
>>
>> I personally don't care about ZFS a tiny little bit; but in general, the
>> current situation with _GPL and non-_GPL exports is simply not nice. It's
>> not really about licensing (despite the name), it's about 'internal vs
>> external', which noone is probably able to define properly.
> But that's exactly what licensing *IS* about: the argument is that
> 'internal' interfaces are clear proof that the binary module is actually
> a derived work of the kernel.
Using fpu code in kernel space in a kernel module is a derived work of 
the kernel itself?
dont get me wrong, but this is absurd. i mean you limit the use of cpu 
instructions. the use
of cpu instructions should be free of any licensing issue. i would even 
argument you are violating
the license of the cpu ower given to the kernel by executing it, by 
restricting its use for no reason


Sebastian