linux-kernel - Re: A proposal

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]

Message-ID: <20060803200136.GB28537@kroah.com>
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/