[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement

    On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
    > It's not as if most (all?) widespread linux-embedded devices are not
    > flashable nowadays. Factory recall everytime you need to fix a
    > security/feature bug just costs too much

    Side note: it's not even about factory recalls, it's that flash chips are
    literally cheaper than masked roms for almost all applications.

    Mask roms are expensive for several reasons:

    - they force extra development costs on you, because you have to be
    insanely careful, since you know you're stuck with it.

    So it's not even just the cost of the recall itself: it's the
    _opportunity_ cost of having to worry about it which tends to be the
    biggest cost by far. Most devices never get recalled, and when they do
    get recalled, a lot of people never bother about it. So the real cost
    is seldom the recall itself, it's just the expense of worrying about
    it, and wasting time on trying to make things "perfect" (which never
    really works anyway)

    - during development, mask roms are a big pain in the ass, so you need to
    build all your development boards (even the very final one! The one
    that is supposedly identical to the released version!) with a flash
    anyway, even if you can only program it by setting a magic jumper or

    So using a mask rom means that your development platform pretty much
    will never match the actual hw platform you sell. That's a DISASTER.
    It's like always developing and testing with the compiler using the
    "-g" flag, but then _shipping_ the binary with "-O". Nobody sane would
    ever do that - it just means that all your verification was basically

    - They force you to use a specialized chip. Mass production usually means
    that in any kind of low volumes, specialized chips are always going to
    be more expensive.

    People seem to sometimes still believe that we live in the 1980's. Mask
    roms used to be relatively "cheaper", because it wasn't as much about
    standardized and huge volumes of chips. These people should please
    realize that technology has changed in the last quarter century, and
    we're not playing "pong" any more.

    [ Side note: is there a good "pong" box you can buy? I want pong and the
    real asteroids - the one with vector graphics. And I realize I can't
    afford the real asteroids, but dang, there should be a realistic pong
    somewhere? Some things are hard to improve on.. ]

    So even if you don't actually want to upgrade the machine, it's likely to
    have a flash in it simply because it's often _cheaper_ that way.

    And it not at all uncommon to have a flash that simply cannot be upgraded
    without opening the box. Even a lot of PC's have that: a lot (most?) PC's
    have a flash that has a separate _hardware_ pin that says that it is
    (possibly just partially) read-only. So in order to upgrade it, you'd
    literally need to open the case up, set a jumper, and _then_ run the
    program to reflash it.

    People do things like that for fail-safe reasons. For example, a portion
    of the flash is read-only, just so that if a re-flashing fails, you have
    the read-only portion that verifies the signature, and if it doesn't
    match, it contains enough basic logic that you can try to re-flash again.

    Those kinds of fail-safes are absolutely _critical_, and I'm not talking
    about some "hypothetical" device here. I'm talking very much about devices
    that you and me and everybody else probably use every stinking day.

    In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that pretty much everybody who is
    reading this is reading it on a machine that has an upgrade facility that
    is protected by cryptographic means. Your CPU. Most of the microcode
    updaters have some simple crypto in them (although sometimes that crypto
    is pretty weak and I think AMD relies more on just not documenting the

    Look into the Linux kernel microcode updater code some day, and please
    realize that it talks to one of those evil "DRM-protected devices".

    And dammit, this is all OK. If people want to write a GPL'd microcode
    update, they damn well should be able to. Oh, but the GPLv3 forbids them
    from doing that without giving out the keys used to sign the result.

    "But that's ok, because the FSF is looking out for all of us, and
    we know mommy knows best."

    So it's all good.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.025 / U:6.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site