Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr>]

Ben Greear wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> writes:
> >
> >  
> > > Ben Greear wrote:
> > >    
> > > > I have a binary module that uses dev_get_by_name...it'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 ?


--
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/