[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"
    Daniel Lezcano wrote:
    > Ben Greear wrote:
    >> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    >>> Patrick McHardy <> writes:
    >>>> Ben Greear wrote:
    >>>>> I have a binary module that uses's sort of a
    >>>>> bridge-like
    >>>>> thing and
    >>>>> needs user-space to tell it which device to listen for packets on...
    >>>>> This code doesn't need or care about name-spaces, so I don't see
    >>>>> how it could
    >>>>> really
    >>>>> be infringing on the author's code (any worse than loading a binary
    >>>>> driver
    >>>>> into the kernel
    >>>>> ever does).
    >>> Regardless of infringement it is incompatible with a complete network
    >>> namespace implementation. Further it sounds like the module you are
    >>> describing defines a kernel ABI without being merged and hopes that
    >>> ABI will still be supportable in the future. Honestly I think doing so
    >>> is horrible code maintenance policy.
    >> I don't mind if the ABI changes, so long as I can still use something
    >> similar.
    >> The namespace logic is interesting to me in general, but at this point
    >> I can't think of a way that
    >> it actually helps this particular module. All I really need is a way
    >> to grab every frame
    >> from eth0 and then transmit it to eth1. I'm currently doing this by
    >> finding the netdevice
    >> and registering a raw-packet protocol (ie, like tcpdump would do). At
    >> least up to 2.6.23,
    >> this does not require any hacks to the kernel and uses only non GPL
    >> exported symbols.
    >> Based on my understanding of the namespace logic, if I never add any
    >> namespaces,
    >> the general network layout should look similar to how it does today,
    >> so I should have
    >> no logical problem with my module.
    >>> Once things are largely complete it makes sense to argue with out of
    >>> tree module authors that because they don't have network namespace
    >>> support in their modules, their modules are broken.
    >> Does this imply that every module that accesses the network code
    >> *must* become
    >> GPL simply because it must interact with namespace logic that is
    >> exported as GPL only symbols?
    > That's right, with init_net's EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and dev_get_xx, we
    > enforce people to be GPL whatever they didn't asked to have the
    > namespaces in their code.
    > Eric, why can we simply change EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL for
    > init_net ?

    Another suggestion/question, is it acceptable to say non-gpl driver
    should use init_task.nsproxy->net_ns instead of &init_net ?

    Or does it make sense to have init_net gpl-exported, since we can access
    it through init_task which is exported without gpl mention ?

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-04 16:23    [W:0.024 / U:5.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site