netdev - Re: DCCP Deprecation

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: <20230816080000.333b39c2@hermes.local>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 08:00:00 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: "Maglione, Gregorio" <Gregorio.Maglione@...y.ac.uk>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Rakocevic, Veselin"
 <Veselin.Rakocevic.1@...y.ac.uk>, "Markus.Amend@...ekom.de"
 <Markus.Amend@...ekom.de>, "nathalie.romo-moreno@...ekom.de"
 <nathalie.romo-moreno@...ekom.de>
Subject: Re: DCCP Deprecation

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 09:38:21 +0000
"Maglione, Gregorio" <Gregorio.Maglione@...y.ac.uk> wrote:

> >As Kuniyuki noted, a relevant record of contributions to netdev would
> >help/be appreciated/customary before proposing stepping-in as
> >maintainer of some networking components.  
> 
> Admittedly I have minimal netdev experience, I thought helping with an unmaintained protocol with no users would have been good experience. However, if we're looking to upstream MP-DCCP then our project would no longer require a DCCP maintainer.
> 
> >IMHO solving the license concerns and move MP-DCCP upstream (in this
> >order) would be the better solution. That would allow creating the
> >contributions record mentioned above.  
> 
> MP-DCCP is open source under GPL-2. The scheduling and reordering algorithms are proprietary, however, they are not necessary to MP-DCCP and can be omitted. Is that enough to solve the license concern? 

Is the scheduling in the kernel? If so yes, it will cause a MP-DCCP not to be accepted.
If it is all done in userspace, then it leaves option for someone to reinvent their own open source version.