linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 19/28] x86/tpm: Early TPM PCR extending driver

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: <a507a85c-e1dd-4c63-94b2-9756ea9ece63@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 12:44:45 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>,
 Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 x86@...nel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
 James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, peterhuewe@....de, jarkko@...nel.org,
 jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net, nivedita@...m.mit.edu,
 herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net, corbet@....net,
 ebiederm@...ssion.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
 kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
 trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 19/28] x86/tpm: Early TPM PCR extending driver

On 12/19/25 13:26, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
...
>> I also seem to remember that there are special rules around the US
>> federal government's inability to hold copyrights. This seems worth at
>> least a mention ... somewhere.
> 
> IANAL either, but in general the safest/correct approach is to retain
> any CRs placed on the code being reused, and the above is the CR on the
> source from the Xen tree.

Yeah, in general, that's a good thing to do.

But I'm puzzled by your response. Are you making an attempt to justify
the past choice to copy the copyrights verbatim? Or are you declining to
follow my request to involve your companies' legal experts given that
you used the "safest/correct approach"?

FWIW, I don't think what you did was bad here. You _did_ use a quite
reasonable approach in the case that a copyright was copied verbatim
from an existing legitimate* project.

 * I'll give Xen the benefit of the doubt just this one time and put it
   in the "legitimate" bucket. :P