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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <32851d30c124e1a499edf3d8c7c0cf0cd04735cc.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:36:10 +0530
From:   Tarun Sahu <tsahu@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
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, 

Thanks for confirming.

There is one more confirmation I required
before I submit a patch series on necessary libhugetlbfs tests, 
Between
LTP and Kselftests, Choosing LTP is right decision? (mentioned details
in patch description)

Thanks

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 10:43 +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> 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.
>