linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:26:13 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Raphael S. Carvalho" <raphaelsc@...lladb.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Pavel Boldin <pboldin@...udlinux.com>,
        Pavel Boldin <boldin.pavel@...il.com>,
        Moritz Lipp <github@....me>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz91@...il.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown

On 1/5/23 06:38, Greg KH wrote:
> But hey, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer which is why I keep insisting
> that one from Intel actually read over this submission and sign-off on
> it to verify that they agree with all of this.

I guess I'm still confused what is triggering the lawyer requirement.
Last time, you asked:

> 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.

To break that down, the earlier submission[1] had:

 * Original developer from a different company
 * Non-GPL original license
 * Relicensing
 * Addition of a new copyright

I can see all of those thing adding up together to trigger the higher
bar of having a lawyer sign off.  It looks like Aaron took that issue
list and tried to improve on it.  This new submission has:

 * Original developer from a different company

Is there anything else in this submission which is triggering the lawyer
review requirement?

If not, I'd be happy to hack up a Documentation patch to describe this
review requirement and make it clear to everyone.  I've gotten traction
with my colleagues in the past once things were fully and clearly
documented.  I'm hoping history repeats itself here.

1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y3L2Jx3Kx9q8Dv55@ziqianlu-desk1/