linux-kernel - Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47532AD2.8090704@trash.net>
Date:	Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:59:46 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see
>> how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new
>> structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts
>> the decision about how a function should be usable to the namespace
>> guys. IMO all functions should continue to be usable as before,
>> as decided by whoever actually wrote them.
>> ...
> 
> Even ignoring the fact that it's unclear whether distributing modules 
> with not GPLv2 compatible licences is legal at all or might bring you in 
> jail,

Agreed, lets ignore that :)

> your statement has an interesting implication:
> 
> Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL stuff.
> 
> Who is considered the author of this code?
> 
> And when should he state whether he prefers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL 
> but wasn't able to use it at that when he wrote it since his code 
> predates it and is glad to be able to decide this now?


He can state it when he feels like it, I don't see the point.
Authors generally get to decide whether they use EXPORT_SYMBOL
or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL unless in cases where its really clear-cut
that EXPORT_SYMBOL is inapproriate. But thats a different matter.

If a symbol was OK to be used previously and something using it
would not automatically be considered a derived work, how does
passing &init_net to the function just to make the compiler
happy, avoid BUG_ONs and generally keep things working as before
make it more of a derived work?
--
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/