linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJTyqKOwxL8xGCtz82qdC563gjCduxag88MLo2M+OVhQMahzsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:09:06 +0000
From:   Mariusz Ceier <mceier+kernel@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Kajetan Puchalski <mrkajetanp@...il.com>, ojeda@...nel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

On 29/04/2021, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:06:12PM +0000, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>
>> > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
>> > in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, *to
>> > be licensed as a whole* at no charge to all third parties under the
>> > terms of this License.
>>
>>
>> The issue here is, non-GPL tools enable development and distribution
>> of GPL-compatible yet proprietary versions of the kernel, unless I'm
>> mistaken.
>
> And?  For your argument to work, we'd need to have the kernel somehow
> locked into the use of tools that would have no non-GPL equivalents
> *and* would be (somehow) protected from getting such equivalents.
> How could that be done, anyway?  Undocumented and rapidly changing
> features of the tools?  We would get screwed by those changes ourselves.
> Copyrights on interfaces?  Software patents?  Some other foulness?
>
> I honestly wonder about the mental contortions needed to describe
> something of that sort as "free", but fortunately we are nowhere
> near such situation anyway.
>

Equivalents are not a problem - they can exist as long as the
distributed source would be buildable with GPL tools. I was thinking
that adding a requirement that the distributed kernel source should be
buildable by GPL tools would be enough to protect it from proprietary
extensions. But maybe you're right that this is unrealistic.

> I don't like Rust as a language and I'm sceptical about its usefulness
> in the kernel, but let's not bring "gcc is better 'cuz GPL" crusades
> into that - they are irrelevant anyway, since we demonstrably *not*
> locked into gcc on all architectures your hypothetical company would
> care about, Rust or no Rust.
>

I don't mind the language. I'm more concerned about featureful rust
compiler suddenly being developed behind closed doors.