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: <1189730968.7105.11.camel@pc06.localdom.local>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:49:28 +0200
From:	hermann pitton <hermann-pitton@...or.de>
To:	Steven Toth <stoth@...ppauge.com>
Cc:	Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@...il.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"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>,
	Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner

Am Donnerstag, den 13.09.2007, 16:36 -0400 schrieb Steven Toth:
> >   
> >> 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
> 

I do confirn that I have all this, Steve mentions, really have seen
already!

Markus, sorry, they did abuse it and will do it again.

Hermann


-
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/