linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] New driver information

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: <200702161641.38117.maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:41:38 +0200
From:	Maxim <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To:	"Thiago Galesi" <thiagogalesi@...il.com>
Cc:	"Heikki Orsila" <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] New driver information

On Friday 16 February 2007 16:08:53 Thiago Galesi wrote:
> SInce this information does not, in any way, affect the functioning of
> the driver... It is not "executable code", I don't see the point of
> it.
> 
> For "module_licence" we have the restriction of some functions being
> used only for GPL code, but for this?!? I really don't see it...
> 
> Just think: what would this macro do, "executable-code wise"?
> 
> 
> On 2/16/07, Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi> wrote:
> > I just read
> >
> >         http://kerneltrap.org/node/7729
> >
> > and it occured to me that it would be informative to have a new device
> > driver macro. The motivation for the new macro would be 4 issues:
> >
> >         * Is it possible to get specifications for the device?
> >         * If yes, under what terms? (nda, public)
> >         * Where to get public specs?
> >         * How many closed and open drivers in the Linux source tree?
> >
> > I suggest to add following macro:
> >
> > MODULE_SPECIFICATION(terms, source);
> >
> > where "terms" is one of
> >
> >  * MODULE_SPEC_ANY_PARTY_NDA
> >         - specification available to any party for an NDA
> >  * MODULE_SPEC_ANY_PARTY
> >         - specification available in public, or at least available
> >           without NDA to any party
> >  * MODULE_SPEC_RESTRICTED
> >         - none of the above
> >
> > and "source":
> >
> >  * contact address for nda specs
> >  * any public source for a public specification (http://, email address,
> >    ...)
> >  * empty string otherwise
> >
> > I realise this macro somewhat circumvents the purpose of Documentation/
> > directory but the idea is to have a direct 1:1 mapping between drivers
> > and specification sources so that it would be easy to collect statistics
> > of "open" hardware by using grep et al.
> >
> > What do you think? Useless annotations or useful information?
> >
> > --
> > Heikki Orsila                   Barbie's law:
> > heikki.orsila@....fi            "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
> > http://www.iki.fi/shd
> > -
> > 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/
> >
> 
> 

I think both sides are right.

I think that documentation about drivers and their specs is a good thing ( i personally spent lot if time to locate it and find that it is unavailable in some cases)
But I agree that it has no place in executable code , instead I think such list can be in /Documentation or even in MAINTAINERS

	Regards, 
		Maxim Levitsky 
-
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/