Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:59:27 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper |
| |
> >The kernel itself links GPL code to non-GPL via the Posix API (the >syscall layer). The kernel also links GPL code to non-GPL via the PCI >layer (all that proprietary firmware on the other side). The >ndiswrapper links GPL code to non-GPL via the NDIS API. > >No difference, really.
Behind the syscall layer is userspace (the well known ring 3), which, all bugs and problems aside, and exceptions like ioperm ruled out, cannot crash the kernel.
I am not too aware about firmware and how it affects the running kernel, but usually it is a binary blob that gets loaded into the PCI device. May or may not crash the kernel - as said, I am not too aware of how it can tamper with the kernel.
NDIS code however is, unlike the above, run unconditionally in superprivileged level (ring 0), which quite distinct from userspace or firmwarespace[note warning above].
Lastly, there is the new IIO code, which sounds like it is a well-defined (you name it) interface, to userspace however.
If Windows drivers could run in userspace, there would not be a problem, would there be?
> Implementing a well-defined interface >abstraction layer doesn't make either side of it derived from the other. >(Exactly how well-defined, how abstract, and how derived are all >arguments for the lawyers.) >-- >Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org> >
-`J' -- - 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/
| |