linux-kernel - Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner

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: <46E99F36.8090809@hauppauge.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:36:06 -0400
From:	Steven Toth <stoth@...ppauge.com>
To:	Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@...il.com>
CC:	Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com>,
	"video4linux-list@...hat.com" <video4linux-list@...hat.com>,
	"linux-dvb@...uxtv.org" <linux-dvb@...uxtv.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner

>   
>> Also there is to consider a non technical aspect, whether vendors will
>> misuse this interface for binary only, undermining the efforts put in
>> for OSS drivers.
>>
>>     
>
> What holds companies for using the current available code putting it
> into an rpm or deb package and releasing such code now?
>
> The Avermedia example I pointed out to is a good example already.
> As from my side I won't release binary drivers.
> Although on the other side:
> * are drivers from vendors which work through several kernel versions
> that bad?
> * Why did someone duallicense videodev2 with BSD/GPL?
>
> I would appreciate if someone else on the list could also comment
> the reason that drivers should all be included in the linuxkernel just
> because forcing the companies to release binary drivers because
> of that. My opinion about that is if a company wants to go opensource
> they will do so, if not they will either not release a driver or release
> nothing.
>
>   

I know for certain that adding a userland API tuner/demod interface to 
the kernel, allowing non-caring opportunistic silicon or board vendors 
to developer closed source proprietary drivers, will have a negative 
effect on the community and we'd set back linuxtv 3-5 years.

I know for certain that it would happen. Trust me.

I've told you this countless times and you're not hearing me.

Hauppauge have some leverage with Conexant and NXP to release public 
datasheets. If they just have to release a demod.so (or similar) 
loadable, they'll defer to the board vendors and we'll see the certain 
board vendors 'locking other board vendors' out of their drivers. We'll 
see embedded firmware, not shared between drivers.

Except, it won't stop at demod.so. It will extend into unfixable bugs 
for VendorB's board, because VendorA doesn't want to release a new 
demod.so, and VendorB has no linux resources. What happens next? For 
financial reasons - demod.so will begin to include checks to see if 
specific PCI or USB devices are present in the system, and will fail to 
work properly (if at all) when they're not being used with the preferred 
products.

Read my lips: For commercial reasons, this enables driver components 
that only work if specific boards are present.

- Steve

-
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/