linux-kernel - Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] virtio-spi: Add virtio-spi.h (V4 draft specification).

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, 14 Dec 2023 18:20:06 +0100
From:   Harald Mommer <harald.mommer@...nsynergy.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        Haixu Cui <quic_haixcui@...cinc.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Harald.Mommer@...il.com,
        quic_ztu@...cinc.com, Matti Moell <Matti.Moell@...nsynergy.com>,
        Mikhail Golubev <Mikhail.Golubev@...nsynergy.com>,
        Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] virtio-spi: Add virtio-spi.h (V4
 draft specification).

Hello Viresh,

On 13.12.23 07:33, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-12-23, 19:58, Harald Mommer wrote:
>> On 12.12.23 11:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I'm working on V8. It's coming to an end, will still have to check some
>> details but it's close. Internal review pending. Now there is a V9 and I
>> will also have to look at this. Maybe I will send V8 and subsequently update
>> to V9,
> I hope you are talking about V8/V9 of the spec here, as I only see one
> version of the Linux driver on the list. Please keep me in cc if
> possible.

What you see is RFC PATCH v1 which meets the V4 draft specification. The 
only one which has been sent so far. For you this is latest. And now I 
got so much comments from you and also a spec update from V8 to V9 so 
that this will remain that way for some days. Need to do changes.

The next one will be RFC patch v2 and is planned to be made according to 
the V9 spec.

And most probably the next one will also attempt to be V9 spec compliant 
if there comes in the mean time a specification update. Moving target 
not good if you work agile, extension of scope all the time.

>>> On 27-10-23, 18:10, Harald Mommer wrote:
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_spi.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause */
>>> Maybe this should be:
>>>
>>> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
>>>
>>> ?
>> Looking into what others do here. virtio_blk.h, virtio_input.h and
>> virtio_iommu.h for example: None is using GPL-2.0 here. virtio_iommu.h is
>> using exactly the same header as we do.
> Looked at all headers for SPDX License in include/uapi/ and this is
> what I see (Yes there are many non SPDX licenses there):
>
>      522 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>      106 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>       18 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) */
>       16 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>       16 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>       11 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>        6 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) */
>        5 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause */
>        4 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>        4 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>        4 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) */
>        3 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT */
>        2 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
>        2 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR Linux-OpenIB) */
>        2 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR CDDL-1.0) */
>        2 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) */
>        2 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>        1 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: ((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) */
>        1 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause */
>        1 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) */
>        1 /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note*/
>
> Also Documentation/process/license-rules.rst says:
>
> "The license described in the COPYING file applies to the kernel source
> as a whole, though individual source files can have a different license
> which is required to be compatible with the GPL-2.0::
>
> ...
>
> Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license,
> e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a
> permissive license like BSD, MIT etc."
>
> And so I thought we may want this to be a dual license.

Please focus on include/uapi/linux/virtio_*.h files only.

You will see a lot BSD without mentioning GPL at all. So we are just 
doing what others did and what was accepted in the past. Changing the 
license is not a change I can do with a finger tip.

>>>> +/* All config fields are read-only for the Virtio SPI driver */
>>>> +struct virtio_spi_config {
>>> Can you please add proper doc style comments for the structures ?
>> Checking my current code. This is updated in the V8 version.
> V8 of this patch ?

V8 of the spec. Don't worry, you missed no code change, you are on 
public latest.