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 02:52:42 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <john.hubbard@...il.com>, 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 02:12 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:59:33AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> You need to write this as:
> 	MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
> for the linker to handle this properly as that is the string it is
> looking for.

Yes, understood. I thought from your previous response that maybe "MIT" alone was 
*intended* to provide access, but this makes sense and matches what I'd thought 
earlier. And of course, your other point (about the header itself being licensed) 
overrides this, but it's nice to get clarification on this detail, as long as I'm 
stuck--for now--on "MIT".

Appreciate your time and quick responses on this, I know it's probably tiresome to 
answer these sorts of questions.

thanks again,
john h


>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>