linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] MODULE_LICENSE removals, sixth tranche

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:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:00:17 +0000
From:   Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] MODULE_LICENSE removals, sixth tranche

(Sorry about this, MTA delivered a bunch of stuff very late.)

On 3 Mar 2023, Luis Chamberlain verbalised:

> Stupid question, if you're removing MODULE_LICENSE() than why keep the
> other stupid MODULE_*() crap too? If its of no use, be gone!

I wish, but when I tried it it broke stuff. At least some MODULE_ things
have side effects -- MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE, maybe MODULE_ALIAS etc...

... and also I was getting complaints when I sent a tree out that did
that, along the lines of "if MODULE_LICENSE is the problem why not just
remove that". It seems one cannot win here, both options elicit
complaints.