netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Document BPF licensing.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:06:32 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Document BPF licensing.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:21:04 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> +In HW
> +-----
> +
> +The HW can choose to execute eBPF instruction natively and provide eBPF runtime
> +in HW or via the use of implementing firmware with a proprietary license.

That seems like a step back, nfp parts are all BSD licensed:

https://github.com/Netronome/nic-firmware/blob/master/firmware/apps/nic/ebpf.uc

> +Packaging BPF programs with user space applications
> +====================================================
> +
> +Generally, proprietary-licensed applications and GPL licensed BPF programs
> +written for the Linux kernel in the same package can co-exist because they are
> +separate executable processes. This applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs.

Interesting. BTW is there a definition of what "executable process" is?

But feel free to ignore, I appreciate that polishing legalese is not
what you want to spend you time doing. Much less bike shedding about
it. Mostly wanted to mention the nfp part :)