linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] UIO: Documentation

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:	Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:12:34 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] UIO: Documentation

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:36:00 +0200, Jesper Juhl said:

> Do we really want this?
> 
> In my oppinion we run the risk here of encouraging behaviour akin to
> what NVidia is doing - release a small kernel "glue" module and then
> keep the driver proper in a binary blob (in userspace, but still a
> binary blob).
> If the company goes out of business and take their driver source with
> them then users are left with a useless, un-debugable, un-maintainable
> binary blob.
> Don't we instead want to encourage/pressure people to release specs
> and/or source code for their hardware/drivers so open, modifiable
> drivers can be written?
> 
> This opens the door for people to start writing closed drivers. In the
> long run that seems to me like a bad deal for our users.

On the other hand, given that we've always said that closed-source stuff in
userspace is OK, the only way to not let *that* horse out of the barn is to
not merge UIO at all.

If you have UIO in the kernel talking to stuff in userspace, you're going to
have to deal with closed-source stuff at the userspace end of the pipe.

Unless somebody can come up with some great feat of sophistry to avoid that?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped