linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 5/7] soundwire: add debugfs support

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: <f1b632e7-e62d-bbd4-e160-36009ee57249@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 11:54:11 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, tiwai@...e.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com,
        broonie@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        jank@...ence.com, joe@...ches.com,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 5/7] soundwire: add debugfs support

On 5/6/19 11:38 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 06-05-19, 09:48, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
>>>> +struct dentry *sdw_bus_debugfs_get_root(struct sdw_bus_debugfs *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (d)
>>>> +		return d->fs;
>>>> +	return NULL;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(sdw_bus_debugfs_get_root);
>>>
>>> _GPL()?
>>
>> Oops, that's a big miss. will fix, thanks for spotting this.
> 
> Not really. The Soundwire code is dual licensed. Many of the soundwire
> symbols are indeed exported as EXPORT_SYMBOL. But I agree this one is
> 'linux' specific so can be made _GPL.
> 
> Pierre, does Intel still care about this being dual licensed or not?

Debugfs was never in scope for the dual-licensed parts, we've already 
agreed for SOF to move to _GPL.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> But why is this exported at all?  No one calls this function.
>>
>> I will have to check.
> 
> It is used by codec driver which are not upstream yet. So my suggestion
> would be NOT to export this and only do so when we have users for it
> That would be true for other APIs exported out as well.

It'll just make the first codec driver patchset more complicated but fine.