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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:17:57 -0700 > Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If I *do* need to add some sort of namespace > > awareness to just achieve today's functionality, I don't mind making the > > changes, > > so long as I don't need to ch

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

From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:57:01 -0800 > echo add_my_bridge my_br1 eth0 namespaceX eth1 namespaceY > > /proc/net/foo/config Each process executes in a namespace, so specifying the namespace is redundant, just fetch the current process's namespace to pass into

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:03:01 -0700 > I am confused. I don't see a path forward that feels right. Eric, instead of writing a book about how you feel, look at the simple facts and resolve this quickly. You added a new key, the namespace, to the looki

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

Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, but can a netdev at least know what namespace it is in? I don't > need this for my module, but it seems very useful knowledge... Sure. dev->nd_net It is a don't care not a don't know, and there should be device events when it goes in and out of a ne

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

Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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: > >

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Eric W. Biederman wrote: However there also seem to be simpler cases like Ben's bridge module, that don't appear to have any global state. Well, my module has some global state, but I don't think it needs to care about namespace

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

Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> However there also seem to be simpler cases like Ben's bridge module, >> that don't appear to have any global state. >> > Well, my module has some global state, but I don't think it needs to care > about > namespaces. My first

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

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 sup

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote: However there also seem to be simpler cases like Ben's bridge module, that don't appear to have any global state. Well, my module has some global state, but I don't think it needs to care about namespaces. My first impression is that my module should be able to brid

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

Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Greear wrote: >>> 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 modu

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

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 fut

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

Daniel Lezcano wrote: Ben Greear wrote: Eric W. Biederman wrote: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... T

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

Ben Greear wrote: Eric W. Biederman wrote: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

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

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:03:38 -0700 > Based on my experience with in-tree code and the few glimpses I > have gotten of out of tree code the reason the out of tree code broke > is because it is doing very questionable things. Calling dev_get_by_foo() w

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

Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please pardon me for jumping in; I am not a kernel developer, but I try > to help with debugging whenever I can (and it's not just hand-waving, I > helped to track down a couple of nasty bugs on MMC or ACPI EC, > recently). And I am an engineer and IA

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

Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 s

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

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:24:15 +0100 Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 22:34 -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > > Stephen Hemminger wrote:. > > >> > > > I spoke too soon earlier, ndiswrapper builds and loads against > > > current 2.6.24-rc3. Vmware and proprietary VPN

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

On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 22:34 -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote:. > >> > > I spoke too soon earlier, ndiswrapper builds and loads against current > > 2.6.24-rc3. Vmware and proprietary VPN software probably do not. Once again > > I don't > > give a damn, but the enterprise distro v

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

Patrick McHardy wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >>> For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see >>> how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new >>> structure and adding a new argument to exist

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

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:59:46PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: >... >> your statement has an interesting implication: >> >> Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc) predates the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL >> stuff

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

> You license yours under the GPL, so they should respect the GPL. > > It sounds like we're back to where we were years ago. Didn't we already > agree that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was *NOT* a GPL-enforcement mechanism and had > nothing to do with respecting the GPL? After all, if it s a GPL-enforcement

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

> > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the > Why - they aren't exactly likely to be permissible by law Really? What law and/or what clause in the GPL says that derivative works have to be licensed

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

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: For all I care binary modules can break, but frankly I don't see how encapsulating a couple of structures and pointers in a new structure and adding a new argument to existing functions shifts the decision about

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

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: Naw, enterprise (or any other) distro vendors shouldn't have any issues here, since they can just patch their kernels around any issues. But it looks like

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

Ben Greear wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: Naw, enterprise (or any other) distro vendors shouldn't have any issues here, since they can just patch their kernels around any issues. But it looks like Eric has this one thought out well enough. So you are saying all this is not a problem,

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

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:51:04 GMT, Alan Cox said: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:30:35 -0800 > > I spoke too soon earlier, ndiswrapper builds and loads against current > > 2.6.24-rc3. Vmware and proprietary VPN software probably do not. Once again > > I don't > > give a damn, but the enterprise distro ven

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

Stephen Hemminger wrote: Naw, enterprise (or any other) distro vendors shouldn't have any issues here, since they can just patch their kernels around any issues. But it looks like Eric has this one thought out well enough. So you are saying all this is not a problem, fine. Any affected p

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

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:30:35 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0800 > Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between kee

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

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:34:09 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0800 > > Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > >> non GPL network drivers. Ther

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

Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the binary seething masses from accessing random kernel funct

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

Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0800 > Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow >> non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the >> binary seething masses f

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

Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/02/2007 12:13 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Fine. But all of them want to call sk_alloc(), >> >> network drivers should be calling sk_alloc less then they should >> call dev_get_by_. Only protocols ca

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

Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the > binary seething masses from accessing random kernel functions, and allowing > r

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric W. Biederman wrote: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a netwo

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

On 12/02/2007 12:13 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Fine. But all of them want to call sk_alloc(), > > network drivers should be calling sk_alloc less then they should > call dev_get_by_. Only protocols call sk_alloc. > >> and many want to do register

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

Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 >> Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Eric W. Biederman wrote: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a network

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

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric W. Biederman wrote: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a network namespace parameter. .. And what should code be passing in wh

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

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric W. Biederman wrote: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a network namespace parameter. .. And what should code be passing in wh

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

Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Can we get this resolved before 2.6.24 is released? Going back and forth >>> on API's is just needless frottage. >> >> Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a network >> namespace parameter. > .. > > And what should code be passing in when

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

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:21:12 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sure. We keep the updated dev_get_by_ that takes a network > > namespace parameter. > .. > > And what should code be passing in when "# CON

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Actually, the whole mess would go away if the api for dev_get_by_ hadn't been changed in the namespace transition. IMHO the interface to dev_get_by_name() should not have added a namespace parameter, of the callers in th

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

Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, the whole mess would go away if the api for dev_get_by_ hadn't > been changed in the namespace transition. IMHO the interface to > dev_get_by_name() > should not have added a namespace parameter, of the callers in the tree, only > two u

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

Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:10:17 -0500 > Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Now that we have network namespace support merged it is time to >> > revisit the sysfs support so we can remove the dependency on !SYSFS. >> ... >> >> Now that the name

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

> Then change the license, explicitly and get it approved, forcing license > changes by technically subversive means is bad policy. It is like Euro > bureaucrats I don't need to - the licence has been the same since about 0.12 Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe net

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

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:23:41 + Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the > > Why - they aren't exactly likely to be permissible by law Matter of debate in wh

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

> Then init_net needs to be not GPL limited. Sorry, we need to allow > non GPL network drivers. There is a fine line between keeping the Why - they aren't exactly likely to be permissible by law > binary seething masses from accessing random kernel functions, and allowing > reasonable (but still

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

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:10:17 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now that we have network namespace support merged it is time to > > revisit the sysfs support so we can remove the dependency on !SYSFS. > ... > > Now that the namespace updates are part of 2.6.24, > there is a major inco

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

Mark Lord wrote: Now that we have network namespace support merged it is time to revisit the sysfs support so we can remove the dependency on !SYSFS. ... Now that the namespace updates are part of 2.6.24, there is a major inconsistency in network EXPORT_SYMBOLs. It used to be that an external n

namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"

Now that we have network namespace support merged it is time to revisit the sysfs support so we can remove the dependency on !SYSFS. ... Now that the namespace updates are part of 2.6.24, there is a major inconsistency in network EXPORT_SYMBOLs. It used to be that an external network module cou