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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 13:01:36 -0700 From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Jack Lo <jlo@...are.com> Subject: Re: A proposal - binary On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:26:16PM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:14:21AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > >>I would like to propose an interface for linking a GPL kernel, > >>specifically, Linux, against binary blobs. > >> > > > >Sorry, but we aren't lawyers here, we are programmers. Do you have a > >patch that shows what you are trying to describe here? Care to post it? > > > > <Posts kernel/module.c unmodified> If you want to stick with the current kernel module interface, I don't see why you even need to bring this up, there are no arguments about that API being in constant flux :) > >How does this differ with the way that the Xen developers are proposing? > >Why haven't you worked with them to find a solution that everyone likes? > > > > We want our backend to provide a greater degree of stability than a pure > source level API as the Xen folks have proposed. We have tried to > convince them that an ABI is in their best interest, but they are > reluctant to commit to one or codesign one at this time. Don't you feel it's a bit early to "commit" to anything yet when we don't have a working implementation? Things change over time, and it's one of the main reasons Linux is so successful. > >And what about Rusty's proposal that is supposed to be the "middle > >ground" between the two competing camps? How does this differ from > >that? Why don't you like Rusty's proposal? > > > > Who said that? Please smack them on the head with a broom. We are all > actively working on implementing Rusty's paravirt-ops proposal. It > makes the API vs ABI discussion moot, as it allow for both. So everyone is still skirting the issue, oh great :) > >Please, start posting code and work together with the other people that > >are wanting to achive the same end goal as you are. That is what really > >matters here. > > > > We have already started upstreaming patches. Jeremy, Rusty and I have > or will send out sets yesterday / today. We haven't been vocal on LKML, > as we'd just be adding noise. We are working with Rusty and the Xen > developers, and you can see our patchset here: > > http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/paravirt/?cl=tip > > And follow our development discussions here: > > http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/virtualization/ I really don't want to follow the discussion unless necessary. I trust Chris and Rusty to do the right thing in this area... thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists