Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>]

Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> 
>>>@@ -2176,3 +2279,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sock_wake_async);
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sockfd_lookup);
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_sendmsg);
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_recvmsg);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_bind);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_listen);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_accept);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_connect);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_getsockname);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_getpeername);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_getsockopt);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_setsockopt);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_sendpage);
>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(kernel_ioctl);
>>
>>Don't we want to restrict this to GPL code with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL?
> 
> 
> There are direct derivatives of the BSD/POSIX system call
> interface.  The protocol function pointers within the socket
> structure are not GPL only.  Why make this wrappered access to
> them GPL only?  It will only encourange the reverse of what they
> were intended to do: be used instead of the protocol function
> pointers within the socket structure, that currently carry no
> such restriction.

This has the makings of a nice stable internal kernel api.  Why do we want
to provide this nice stable internal api to proprietary modules?

Regards,

Daniel