linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL symbols

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: <20241114230601.GO3387508@ZenIV>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 23:06:01 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Aaron Rainbolt <arraybolt3@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>, tux@...edocomputers.com,
	Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL
 symbols

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 01:21:41PM -0600, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:

> binary you get after compiling and linking. It looks to me like this
> patch will prevent users from compiling Tuxedo's modules for personal
> use on their own systems though. I personally dislike that for ethical
> reasons - I should be able to use whatever code I legally obtain on my
> system, and I don't like my use of Linux being wielded against another
> open-source project by requiring them to relicense their code or no one
> will be able to use their modules.

I would question the "open-source" part here, TBH...  I'm no fan of
GPLv3 (to put it mildly), but I really wonder if that use of said
license is in keeping with its, er, spirit.  Ironic, that...

Seriously, WTF had these folks had been thinking when they chose GPLv3
for a kernel module?  I'm yet to see any coherent explanation - and
the ones I have seen would be _really_ incompatible with the stated
goals of GPLv3.  To such a degree that I can't take them as anything
plausible.

Could somebody who'd been there at least explain the rationale for
the license choice made back then?