linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref

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:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:59:33 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <john.hubbard@...il.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] refcount: restore kref_get and kref_put to non-GPL
 status



On 03/08/2017 01:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:25:48AM -0800, john.hubbard@...il.com wrote:
>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Say, I'm 99% sure that this was just an oversight, so
>> I'm sticking my neck out here and floating a patch to
>> Put Things Back. I'm hoping that there is not some
>> firm reason to GPL-protect the basic kref_get and
>> kref_put routines, because when designing some
>> recent new (open-source, yay!) device drivers, we relied
>> on this being available, even for MIT-licensed code.
>
> MIT-licensed code should be just fine with GPL symbols, just use the
> correct MODULE_LICENSE() setting and all is good.

Actually, we're still using this license string:

    MODULE_LICENSE("MIT");

which I understand does *not* grant access to GPL symbols. So I guess we'd have to 
switch over to "MIT/GPL", if I understand correctly, in order to be all correct here.

>
> As all of the previous kref functions were in a GPL-only header file,
> and included directly that way, they were already GPL-only symbols, so
> there really was no change here except now the linker checks them.  If
> you have questions about using inline GPL-only functions from a .h file,
> in a non-GPL codebase, please consult your corporate lawyer to get
> clarification.

As much as I do enjoy chatting with those guys, I think I'll pass this time. :)

thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>