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  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:   Sat, 4 May 2019 08:40:41 +0200
From:   Greg KH <>
To:     Sebastian Gottschall <>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <>, Jiri Kosina <>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        LKML <>,
        Rik van Riel <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Nicolai Stange <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Radim Krčmář <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,,, Jiri Kosina <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Remove the _GPL from the kernel_fpu_begin/end()

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 <> 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:
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