linux-kernel - Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 21:24:39 +0530
From:	Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
To:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 10:48 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> Nice catch there Bart.  That was well before my role as maintainer and
>>> so settles things well enough for me.  IOW, I don't feel I need to worry
>>> about trying to maintain the dual license nature of the RDMA stack as it
>>> was broken long before I took over.  Thanks for pointing that out.
>>>
>>
>> Does it mean we can submit new code files under GPL only license?
>
> You always could.
>
>> I submitted RDMA cgroup related code in ib_core under GPLv2 only license.
>
> You did and you didn't.  For instance, in patch 1/3, the new
> cgroup_rdma.c file has a notice of GPLv2, but no notice of copyright, so
> it's incomplete.  You need to put a copyright notice in the file too.
> And in the file cgroup_rdma.h you have neither a copyright notice or a
> license statement.  It's a plain file.
>
> In patch 2/3, the file infiniband/core/cgroup.c has a copied dual
> license (not necessary, it can be GPL only), but again, it is missing
> the copyright notice.
>
ok. I will fix this part too in v11.

> You need to finish the conversation you and Christoph were having in
> that thread, but you also need a v11 of the patchset that fixes the
> copyright issues.
>
Yes. I will ping Christoph and Tejun as I am waiting for their responses.