linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] kbuild, PCI: microchip: comment out MODULE

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: <873576wxx5.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 19:06:46 +0000
From:   Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] kbuild, PCI: microchip: comment out MODULE_LICENSE
 in non-modules

On 13 Feb 2023, Leon Romanovsky said:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 04:13:00PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
>> So SPDX is usually more precise than the MODULE_LICENSE, but is it more
>> *accurate*? I have no idea, and I don't see how I could possibly know:
>> going by the presence of advertising clauses that obviously nobody is
>> obeying it doesn't seem like we can trust header comments to be any more
>> accurate than MODULE_LICENSE. Best to just leave both in (and comment it
>> out so it has no side-effects on the build any more, which is all I'm
>> after).
>
> You are overcomplicating things.
>
> First, GPL == GPL v2.
> Second, SPDX is the right one. License in module is needed to limit
> EXPORT_SYMBOL* exposure.
> Third, we have git log and git blame to audit and revert any change.
> There is no need in leaving (even as commented) dead code.

Agreed. I audited the lot anyway -- all those files I'm touching that
lack SPDXes (14 of them) have copyright headers at the top of the file
anyway, so there is *definitely* no legal implication from dropping
this. Moving to just dropping them in the next round.

-- 
NULL && (void)