linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/13] selftests/sgx: Fix compilation errors

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: <8ee33b07-8636-4060-bf60-a5f6d3384b41@kuleuven.be>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:58:12 +0200
From:   Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...euven.be>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/13] selftests/sgx: Fix compilation errors

On 10.10.23 14:11, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Dave, since there was already sort of talk about detaching this
> code from kernel tree so that Jo could work on "pure C" runtime
> would it make sense to dual-license this first in the kernel tree?
> 
> E.g. Jo could send a patch once this is merged with a new SPDX
> platter and we can then ack that?
> 
> Just a proposal, with the emphasis on minimal amount of work
> required from each party. Also this would help with possible
> (and likely) bug fixes, i.e. minimal friction on fixing the same
> bug.
> 
> Later on of course, we can consider adding "libsgx-dev" as depedency
> similarly as today there's a few dependencies like libelf-dev.
> 
> I'm open for alternative proposals, just throwing something that
> came up mind.

Pitching in here: from my side, I'd also be fine to develop this 
bare-sgx "pure C" runtime under GPLv2 as is.

FWIW, I'd be mostly interested in and see most immediate use cases for 
such a runtime in research purposes (e.g., low-level benchmarking; rapid 
prototyping attacks/defenses; etc) and a copyleft license would be a 
good fit there IMHO.

This is not to say that I'm principally opposed to a more permissive 
(dual) license, especially if there would be a good use case for that.

But it seems to me that it may be non-trivial to build on the existing 
code base and re-license that, whereas GPLv2 would allow to fork 
immediately and also have any overlapping bug fixes seamlessly merged 
back upstream as you pointed out.

Also open to hearing alternative proposals of course!

Best,
Jo