linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] misc: nxp-sr1xx: UWB driver support for sr1xx series chip

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: <Y4cF2pX4Lohefm4f@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:27:22 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Manjunatha Venkatesh <manjunatha.venkatesh@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mb@...htnvm.io, ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com,
        arnd@...db.d, mst@...hat.com, javier@...igon.com,
        mikelley@...rosoft.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
        sunilmut@...rosoft.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        ashish.deshpande@....com, rvmanjumce@...il.com
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] misc: nxp-sr1xx: UWB driver support for
 sr1xx series chip

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:10:08AM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
> 
> On 9/14/2022 8:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:

Note, originally you all were "rushed" to get this accepted, and now
this took 2 1/2 months to respond back to a code review?  Something is
wrong here, when responding so late, almost all context is lost :(

> > Caution: EXT Email
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:59:44PM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
> > > +++ b/drivers/misc/nxp-sr1xx.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,794 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
> > Please no.  If you really want to dual-license your Linux kernel code,
> > that's fine, but I will insist that you get a signed-off-by from your
> > corporate lawyer so that I know that they agree with this and are
> > willing to handle all of the complex issues that this entails as it will
> > require work on their side over time.
> > 
> > If that's not worth bothering your lawyers over, please just stick with
> > GPL as the only license.
> Dual-license is signed-off by NXP corporate lawyer.

We need a signed-off-by on the patch itself.

> Though, we would like to understand what complex issues which require
> work over the time?

I am not a lawyer and can not advise you of this, please work with yours
to set into place the requirements you will have to keep this working
properly.  Note, it is not trivial, and will require work on your end.

I will push back again, and ask "Why?"  Why do you want this dual
licensed?  What is driving that requirement and what will having it
licensed like this enable you to do that having it just under GPL-2.0
will not?

> > > +#define SR1XX_SET_PWR _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x01, long)
> > > +#define SR1XX_SET_FWD _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x02, long)
> > You can't stick ioctl command definitions in a .c file that userspace
> > never sees.  How are your userspace tools supposed to know what the
> > ioctl is and how it is defined?
> We will move ioctl command definitions into user space header file as part
> of our next patch submission.
> > How was this ever tested and where is your userspace code that interacts
> > with this code?
> We will share the corresponding user space code soon,meanwhile can you
> please suggest how to share this user space code?

You all have ways of posting code publicly :)

thanks,

greg k-h