linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 05/13] kbuild: remove MODULE_LICENSE/AUTHOR/DESCRIPTION in non-modules

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: <Y5AgMuMu75gne6Ka@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 21:10:10 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        eugene.loh@...cle.com, kris.van.hees@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/13] kbuild: remove
 MODULE_LICENSE/AUTHOR/DESCRIPTION in non-modules

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 09:03:52PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 10:02:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, at 21:03, Nick Alcock wrote:
> > > On 6 Dec 2022, Geert Uytterhoeven uttered the following:
> > > Only MODULE_LICENSE invokes MODULE_FILE and thus ends up introducing a
> > > KBUILD_MODOBJS entry that triggers things going wrong iff not a module:
> > > so only it needs to go out (or be replaced with a variant that doesn't
> > > invoke MODULE_FILE, if you want to keep the license in too --
> > 
> > That sounds like a better alternative
> > 
> > > but if the thing is no longer a standalone entity at all I'm not sure
> > > what meaning it could possibly have).
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, the general trend is to make more things modules,
> > so there is a good chance that these come back eventually. If the
> > information in the MODULE_LICENSE field isn't wrong, I would just
> > leave it in there.
> 
> Tooling today uses it though to make a deterministic call on if something
> *can* be a module. In particular after commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create
> modules.builtin without Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf") we rely on
> the module license tag to generate the modules.builtin file. This in
> turn is used to allow modprobe to *not* fail when trying to load a module
> which is built-in.
> 
> So we can't just disable the tag for when the code is built-in as *want*
> to carry it when modules are built-in, that is the point, to help
> userspace with this determination.
> 
> I don't think we want to revert 8b41fc4454e as it means we'd force Kbuild to
> traverse the source tree twice.
> 
> Geert's point was not keeping MODULE_LICENSE() but instead the other
> MODULE_*() crap for things which are not modules in case in the future
> code becomes a module...
> 
> But I don't see the point in keeping things around just in case, if we
> want to keep things simple. Just use the SPDX license tag for the license.

Or if you really want to keep it just make it an *eye-sore*, and comment it out.

I don't see why at build-time we should suffer.

  Luis