Am Donnerstag 09 August 2007 16:12 schrieb Alan Cox: > > That's no UIO invention. Userspace software that uses kernel interfaces like > > syscall, device files, sysfs, and so on, is by definition _not_ a derived > > work > > of the kernel and can be distributed under any license. > > This I believe incorrect. Please cite caselaw if you know better.
What about the statement at the top of COPYING in the top level kernel source directory? I know, you've got examples in mind where a kernel module and a userspace program are dependent on each other and none of them can be used without the other. Of course, we've got such a case for a UIO kernel module and userspace driver. But if the degree of dependency between kernel and userspace can constitute a different legal situation, then we have a _very_ large legal grayzone. > > > With UIO, you have a kernel module that is so small, that even somebody who > > hasn't got the hardware can easily review it and tell if the code is OK or > > not. > > It is easy to maintain and doesn't reveal any secrets about the hardware. > > False > > Because you have no idea if the interface is correct or the userspace is > doing stuff like triggering DMA to arbitary addresses via the interface > or mmap functions. If it does so then even if its root only you've blown > your security model. OK, I agree. But in comparison to using /dev/mem for these tasks, I still consider UIO an improvement. Thanks, Hans - 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/
