linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: vmx: Remove dubiously licensed crypto code

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: <20170413153027.01e34e1f@kitsune.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:30:27 +0200
From:   Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To:     Paulo Flabiano Smorigo <pfsmorigo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Leonidas S. Barbosa" <leosilva@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: vmx: Remove dubiously licensed crypto code

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:30:17 -0300
Paulo Flabiano Smorigo <pfsmorigo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 2017-03-29 20:08, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> > On 03/29/2017 08:13 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:  
> >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:51:35 +0200
> >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>   
> >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:56:39PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:  
> >>>> While reviewing commit 11c6e16ee13a ("crypto: vmx - Adding asm
> >>>> subroutines for XTS") which adds the OpenSSL license header to
> >>>> drivers/crypto/vmx/aesp8-ppc.pl licensing of this driver came
> >>>> into qestion. The whole license reads:
> >>>> 
> >>>>  # Licensed under the OpenSSL license (the "License").  You may
> >>>> not use # this file except in compliance with the License.  You
> >>>> can obtain a # copy
> >>>>  # in the file LICENSE in the source distribution or at
> >>>>  # https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
> >>>> 
> >>>>  #
> >>>>  #
> >>>> ====================================================================
> >>>> # Written by Andy Polyakov <appro@...nssl.org> for the OpenSSL #
> >>>> project. The module is, however, dual licensed under OpenSSL and
> >>>> # CRYPTOGAMS licenses depending on where you obtain it. For
> >>>> further # details see http://www.openssl.org/~appro/cryptogams/.
> >>>> #
> >>>> ====================================================================
> >>>> 
> >>>> After seeking legal advice it is still not clear that this driver
> >>>> can be legally used in Linux. In particular the "depending on
> >>>> where you obtain it" part does not make it clear when you can
> >>>> apply the GPL and when the OpenSSL license.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I tried contacting the author of the code for clarification but
> >>>> did not hear back. In absence of clear licensing the only
> >>>> solution I see is removing this code.  
> > 
> > A quick 'git grep OpenSSL' of the Linux tree returns several other
> > crypto files under the ARM architecture that are similarly
> > licensed. Namely:
> > 
> > arch/arm/crypto/sha1-armv4-large.S
> > arch/arm/crypto/sha256-armv4.pl
> > arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped
> > arch/arm/crypto/sha512-armv4.pl
> > arch/arm/crypto/sha512-core.S_shipped
> > arch/arm64/crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped
> > arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-armv8.pl
> > arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-core.S_shipped
> > 
> > On closer inspection of some of those files have the addendum that
> > "Permission to use under GPL terms is granted", but not all of them.
> > 
> > -Tyrel  
> 
> In 2015, Andy Polyakov, the author, replied in this mailing list [1]:
> 
> "I have no problems with reusing assembly modules in kernel context.
> The whole idea behind cryptogams initiative was exactly to reuse code
> in different contexts."
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6027481/
> 

So what? You also got a statement from whoever is relevant from OpenSSL
from where this code is obviously merged? Even if you did has the
e-mail discussion any value whatsoever?

Neither is a replacement for including a proper license statement with
the code. Not by reference to an e-mail discussion or a web site.

Thanks

Michal