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: <44D26A3E.5080603@vmware.com>
Date:	Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:27:26 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, greg@...ah.com,
	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

Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Iau, 2006-08-03 am 22:29 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau:
>   
>> I think that the issue Zach tried to cover is the current inability to
>> keep the same binary module across multiple kernel versions. That's why
>> he compared modules<->kernel to ELF<->glibc. In that sense, he's right.
>>     
>
> I think thats why he's wrong.
>
> The interface for a hypedvisor is
>
>       Kernel -> Something -> Hypedvisor
>
> The kernel->something interface can change randomly by day of week, who
> cares. A better analogy would be a device driver - we recompile device
> drivers each kernel variant, which change their internal interfaces, we 
> redesign their locking but we don't have to change the hardware.
>
> Ditto talking to the hypedvisor. The ABI is the hypedvisor syscall/trap
> interface not the kernel module interface. As such insmod is just fine.
>   

Yes, the module issue is completely tangential.  We would like to have 
the ability to load a hypervisor module at run-time, and this may be 
slightly nicer from a GPL point of view, by allowing us to publish a GPL 
module that interfaces to the kernel.  But the Something layer really is 
more like firmware, and merely making a GPL'd module interface to it 
doesn't actually change the underlying legal / technical ramifications 
that Alan pointed out.

Zach
-
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/