netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 04/20] zinc: ChaCha20 x86

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809190802160.1468@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Andy Polyakov <appro@...nssl.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 04/20] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation

Jason,

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +++ b/lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64-glue.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> >
> > Please put that into a separate one liner comment. Also this should be
> > 'GPL-2.0[+] or MIT' I think.
> 
> I had that originally, but changed it to just MIT, since MIT is a
> subset of GPL-2.0. And looking at tree repo, it appears this is what
> others do too.

Subset? Not really. Both MIT and BSD3-Clause are GPL2.0 compatible
licenses. And if your intention is to have those files MIT/BSD only, yes
then the single license identifier is the right thing. If you want it dual
licensed then it should be expressed there clearly.

Thanks,

	tglx