linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

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:	Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:49:18 +0200
From:	"Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@...lab.net>
To:	linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

Le jeudi 1 décembre 2011 21:59:56 HoP, vous avez écrit :
> > Kernel code is GPLv2. You can use its code on a GPLv2 licensed library.
> 
> I see. So if you think it is nice to get dvb-core, make a wrapper around
> to get it usable in userspace and maintain totally same functionality
> by myself then I say it is no go. If it looks for you like good idea
> I must disagree. Code duplication?

Sure, some core code would be duplicated. That is not a big deal.

This proposal however has three big advantages:
- Proprietary drivers are not enabled as the library would be GPL.
- The virtual DVB device runs in the same process as the DVB application, 
which saves context switching and memory copying.
- It would be your project. You do not need to agree with Mauro ;-)

> Two maintaners? That is crazy idea man.

Someone would have to maintain the device driver anyway. I don't see much of a 
difference on maintainance side.

> > And I can't see any advantage on yours ;) Putting something that belongs
> > to userspace into kernelspace just because it is easier to re-use the
> > existing code inside the kernel is not a good argument.
> 
> It is only your POV that it should be in userspace.

Except for backward compatiblity, this would actually belong in userspace. It 
would be more efficient and easier to maintain as a userspace library than as 
a kernel driver.

If you need backward compatibility, I am still inclined to believe that you 
could write a CUSE frontend, so it does involve some extra work and looses the 
performance benefit.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/
http://fi.linkedin.com/in/remidenis
--
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/