Re: License go no go?

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 04:39:49 PST

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Revising the remaining IPC hooks"

    On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
    
    > How is writing a proprietary LSM kernel module any different from any other
    > proprietary kernel module?
    
    See Linus' statements at
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103487469728730&w=2 and
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103487582630213&w=2.
    As he explains, non-GPL modules were for pre-existing works of code
    (e.g. drivers, filesystems) ported from other operating systems that could
    be clearly argued to not be derived works of the Linux kernel.  He also
    notes that the limited export table acted somewhat as a barrier to
    separate such modules from the kernel.
    
    Most (all?) of the LSM-based security modules were originally implemented as
    Linux kernel patches, sometimes with a separate module, but that module
    still had to be GPL'd since it depended on a kernel patch.  Furthermore,
    at least some security modules contain code that is clearly derived from
    the Linux kernel (e.g. variants of d_path for reconstructing pathnames,
    code for flushing unauthorized descriptors on a domain-changing execve,
    etc).  The LSM patch significantly extends the kernel's exported
    interface, and most of the kernel developers only seem willing to tolerate
    LSM if the interface is explicitly noted to be restricted to GPL-only
    modules.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 04:42:32 PST