linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2

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: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0801160904200.9544@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:12:05 -0500 (EST)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
cc:	caglar@...dus.org.tr, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2


> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:37:37 +0200, =?utf-8?q?S=2E=C3=87a=C4=9Flar?= Onur said:
> > > > And because of mcount-add-basic-support-for-gcc-profiler-instrum.patch, closed
> > > > source nvidia-new module cannot be used with this release (mcount is exported
> > > > GPL only), i know this is not supported but i used it with that [2] patch up
> > > > until now without a single problem.
> > >
> > > Playing devil's advocate here - the claim is that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is to
> > > indicate that code is getting too chummy with Linux internals.
> > >
> > > However, in *this* case, isn't it "code that is too chummy with *GCC* internals",
> > > and thus it isn't our place to say what can and can't be done with code that
> > > is derivative of the GCC compiler? ;)
> >
> > Actually, it got put in there by accident. I usually default all my
> > exports as GPL.  But this breaks pretty much everything, so I'll leave it
> > as EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>
> OK, I can live with that. ;)
>

We modified mcount now, and it is derived from an objdump of glibc. So
this is most definitely a "derived" work from glibc. But glibc is licensed
as LGPL, which IIRC allows for non GPL to link to it.

I personally could care less if we use EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
But I really want to do The Right Thing(tm). I'm not a lawyer and don't
claim that I know anything about the law, but I'm leaning towards the non
_GPL version because the code was from LGPL and not from strict GPL.

-- 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/