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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190504064041.GB26311@kroah.com> Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 08:40:41 +0200 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@...media-net.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Remove the _GPL from the kernel_fpu_begin/end() export On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 04:28:17AM +0200, Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > > Am 04.05.2019 um 02:47 schrieb Ingo Molnar: > > * Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2 May 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > Please don't start this. We have everything _GPL that is used for FPU > > > > related code and only a few functions are exported because KVM needs it. > > > That's not completely true. There are a lot of static inlines out there, > > > which basically made it possible for external modules to use FPU (in some > > > way) when they had kernel_fpu_[begin|end]() available. > > > > > > I personally don't care about ZFS a tiny little bit; but in general, the > > > current situation with _GPL and non-_GPL exports is simply not nice. It's > > > not really about licensing (despite the name), it's about 'internal vs > > > external', which noone is probably able to define properly. > > But that's exactly what licensing *IS* about: the argument is that > > 'internal' interfaces are clear proof that the binary module is actually > > a derived work of the kernel. > Using fpu code in kernel space in a kernel module is a derived work of the > kernel itself? > dont get me wrong, but this is absurd. i mean you limit the use of cpu > instructions. the use > of cpu instructions should be free of any licensing issue. i would even > argument you are violating > the license of the cpu ower given to the kernel by executing it, by > restricting its use for no reason Now you are just being crazy, please go talk to a lawyer about how the GPL actually works. If Andy wants to change the symbol of what he wrote from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to EXPORT_SYMBOL(), that's fine, it's his option. Any loony discussion about if this is actually a licensing issue or not needs to just go to /dev/null As homework, everyone please go read this: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.pdf and remember that the license of the Linux kernel is GPLv2. Now where's the "kill this thread" option on mutt so I don't have to see any more of this nonsense... greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists