Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:59:08 +0200 (CEST) | From | "Robert M. Stockmann" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:30:58AM +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote: > > > What the hell do these two paragraphs have to do with each other? > > > > C99 coding style, more specific the use of unnamed and anonymous structures > > and unions, allows the kernel programmer to interface, read glue, binary only > > driver modules to interface with any linux kernel source tree. > > What the hell are you going on about? Unnamed structures are a > syntactical construct and have ZILCH to do with runtime.
I thought so too, until your semi open-source link kit is linked to that brand-new linux kernel source tree, and at the same time the binary components of your link-kit have become incompatible with that newer kernel.
Result? one might even loose its data, upon booting that newly build kernel and modules, in case your storage-controller has a binary only link-kit as its driver.
> > The needed header files, which need to be read by the gcc compiler, contain > > unnamed and annonymizes structures and unions. In the worst case scenario, > > only the name of used variables are given and no info about variable type or > > size are inside these headers files. gcc-2.95.3 fails to succesfully link these > > Opaque types have been available FOREVER.
sure, but can one qualify that as Open Source?
Robert -- Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |