linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown

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]

Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:57 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown

On 11/16/22 22:10, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:57:22PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/14/22 22:54, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>>> I came to the conclusion that this work is OK to submit with all of the
>>>> steps I listed above (copyright notices, license terms and relicensing)
>>>> by strictly following all of the processes required by my employer.
>>>>
>>>> This does not include a Signed-off-by from a corporate attorney.
>>> Please get that, as that is what I asked for in order for us to be able
>>> to accept this type of change.
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Can you share any more of what triggered this new requirement?
> You are taking source from a non-Intel developer under a different
> license and adding copyright and different license information to it.
> Because of all of that, I have the requirement that I want to know that
> Intel legal has vetted all of this and agrees with the conclusions that
> you all are stating.

I rarely speak "for Intel".  But, this is one case where I believe that
I can.  The Intel processes have been thoroughly and diligently followed
here.  Speaking for Intel: yes, this has been vetted and those
statements are as official as a statement from Intel can be.

Also, to reiterate my earlier offer: I believe Aaron can be flexible in
both the license under which this is submitted and the presence of an
explicit Intel copyright notice.  If modifications there would help ease
your concerns, we'd be happy to explore changes.

I also recognize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion
about what constitutes a 'valid' licensing decision.  It's quite
possible that the advice we're getting from folks at Intel differs the
advise that others get.  If that's happening, I'd love to find a way
forward that allows that legitimate difference of opinion to persist
while also getting a selftest in the kernel that I believe will find
real bugs.