linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow a kthread to declare that it calls task_work

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:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:14:29 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow a kthread to declare that it calls
 task_work_run()

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 03:09:44PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/23 2:02 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> > It isn't clear to me what _GPL is appropriate, but maybe the rules
> > changed since last I looked..... are there rules?
> > 
> > My reasoning was that the call is effectively part of the user-space
> > ABI.  A user-space process can call this trivially by invoking any
> > system call.  The user-space ABI is explicitly a boundary which the GPL
> > does not cross.  So it doesn't seem appropriate to prevent non-GPL
> > kernel code from doing something that non-GPL user-space code can
> > trivially do.
> 
> By that reasoning, basically everything in the kernel should be non-GPL
> marked. And while task_work can get used by the application, it happens
> only indirectly or implicitly. So I don't think this reasoning is sound
> at all, it's not an exported ABI or API by itself.
> 
> For me, the more core of an export it is, the stronger the reason it
> should be GPL. FWIW, I don't think exporting task_work functionality is
> a good idea in the first place, but if there's a strong reason to do so,

Yeah, I'm not too fond of that part as well. I don't think we want to
give modules the ability to mess with task work. This is just asking for
trouble.