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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Ben Greear <[email protected]> writes:

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.
It has occurred to me that I am seeing an implication here that may in fact not
exist.

My impression of dev_get_by_xxxx is that the function is only able to be used
sanely when being part of the definition of a kernel/userspace interface.  With
the further assumption on my part that you need to define a new instance of
dev_get_by_xxxx
It has just occurred to me that it is possible to reuse the SIOCBRADDIF
and SIOCBRDELIF for that same purpose without defining a new kernel/userspace
interface.

What and how are you using dev_get_by_xxx?
I have a module that has a collection of 2-port bridges. These bridges are used for emulation purposes (somewhat similar to netem's feature set). Each bridge is logically independent
of the others.   To set up a bridge, I do something like:

echo add_my_bridge my_br1 eth0 eth1 > /proc/net/foo/config

Inside the module, it reads "eth0" and "eth1" and needs to find those
devices (ie, dev_get_by_name).  It then registers to receive all pkts from
eth1 and transmit them on eth0, and vice versa.

If it would not require GPL symbols, I have no problem changing my API to be something
like:

echo add_my_bridge my_br1 eth0 namespaceX eth1 namespaceY > /proc/net/foo/config
I am using procfs so that I don't have to define any new 'official'
kernel ABI, as that would more likely be a derivative work, and is a pain
to keep up to date with changing kernels anyway...

Personally, it seems useful for my module to be able to have eth0 in one namespace and eth1 in another, but I won't complain if they both have to be in the same namespace
or even just in the default namespace due to GPL symbol issues.

Thanks,
Ben

--
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux