From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777F4C433F5 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 10:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353463AbiCPKqQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:46:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49506 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235181AbiCPKqP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2022 06:46:15 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E0443EEC for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 03:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A651476; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 03:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.197.1] (ewhatever.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.1]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FBC83F73D; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 03:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <88915dc5-e156-f864-ac28-c40ddb8cc799@arm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 10:44:57 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests] Adding the QCBOR library to kvm-unit-tests Content-Language: en-US To: Alexandru Elisei , Andrew Jones Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com References: <20220315152528.u7zdkjlq6okahidm@gator> From: Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, Alexandru, On 16/03/2022 10:42, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:25:28PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 01:33:57PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Arm is planning to upstream tests that are being developed as part of the >>> Confidential Compute Architecture [1]. Some of the tests target the >>> attestation part of creating and managing a confidential compute VM, which >>> requires the manipulation of messages in the Concise Binary Object >>> Representation (CBOR) format [2]. >>> >>> I would like to ask if it would be acceptable from a license perspective to >>> include the QCBOR library [3] into kvm-unit-tests, which will be used for >>> encoding and decoding of CBOR messages. >>> >>> The library is licensed under the 3-Clause BSD license, which is compatible >>> with GPLv2 [4]. Some of the files that were created inside Qualcomm before >>> the library was open-sourced have a slightly modified 3-Clause BSD license, >>> where a NON-INFRINGMENT clause is added to the disclaimer: >>> >>> "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED >>> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF >>> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE **AND NON-INFRINGEMENT** >>> ARE DISCLAIMED" (emphasis by me on the added clause). >>> >>> The files in question include the core files that implement the >>> encode/decode functionality, and thus would have to be included in >>> kvm-unit-tests. I believe that the above modification does not affect the >>> compatibility with GPLv2. >>> >>> I would also like to mention that the QCBOR library is also used in Trusted >>> Firmware-M [5], which is licensed under BSD 3-Clause. >>> >>> [1] https://www.arm.com/architecture/security-features/arm-confidential-compute-architecture >>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8949 >>> [3] https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR >>> [4] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses >>> [5] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/lib/ext/qcbor >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alex >>> >> >> Assuming the license is OK (I'm not educated in that stuff enough to give >> an opinion), then the next question is how do we want to integrate it? >> Bring it all in, like we did libfdt? Or use a git submodule? Thanks for your feedback. > > This is still a work in progress and at this time I'm not sure how it will > end up looking. Do you have a preference for one or the other? > My two cents. With the submodule approach, we can move to the later versions of the QCBOR library (if needed, in the future) without much noise in the history. Cheers Suzuki > Thanks, > Alex