linux-kernel - Re: x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu

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: <20190115134221.GB30742@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:42:21 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rene Schickbauer <cavac@...ac.at>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "Hutter, Tony" <hutter2@...l.gov>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.c.dionne@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:01:48PM +0100, Rene Schickbauer wrote:
> To be frank, your argument, which boils down to "GPL is the only correct
> open source license", makes me ashamed to have been advocating people
> switching to Linux. This is exactly the kind of argument that made me switch
> away from closed source operating systems like Windows, only then it was
> Steve Ballmer using it against open source.

What?

No, my argument is, "If you want to interact directly with Linux kernel
code in kernel-space, then you have to abide by it's license, which is
GPLv2".  That's it.  If you wish to use open source code by another
license, wonderful, I'm not telling you what you can, and can not do,
but please, do not violate the license of the code I contributed under
GPLv2.

ZFS could be the best filesystem ever to grace this planet, that's
fantastic, but given that the creators of that code placed it under a
license that was specifically designed to not be compatible with Linux
to prevent it from ever being used on Linux, well, you can see why I
really don't care about it.  Why would I?

Those copyright owners (well license owner at this point in time) could
fix this all tomorrow if they wanted to.  But they do not, so _THEY_ are
the people you should be upset at.  Not at the Linux kernel developers
who are giving you a kernel on which to use on your systems, for free,
under the GPLv2.  Our position has always been very clear and upfront.
And really, so has the ZFS license creators.  So why is anyone upset
about all of this?  Nothing new has changed here with the license of
anything.

best of luck!

greg k-h