linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH] Hugetlb: Migrating hugetlb tests from libhugetlbfs

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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:43:36 +0200
From:   Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
To:     Tarun Sahu <tsahu@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     ltp@...ts.linux.it, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH] Hugetlb: Migrating hugetlb tests from
 libhugetlbfs

Hi!
> As mentioned in the patch description, there is a conflict in license,
> That is why, I have avoided to put any of them in the header. Once
> confirmed within the community, I can add the original license here.
> (GPL2.1+) as 
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines
> this says only to add code with GPL2.0+.

As far as I can tell there is no GPL2.1+ the only 2.1 version in
existence is LGPL.

GPL2.1+ usually happens to be an error when someone takes library header
with LGPL2.1+ license and removes the "Lesser" part.

However it looks like the whole libhugetlbfs is under LGPL2.1+ which
kind of makes sense for a library, but not so much for the tests since
these do not provide a library that can be linked againts at all.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@...e.cz