Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] RISC-V: crypto: add accelerated GCM GHASH implementation

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

Hi Heiko,

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:04:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..677c438a44bf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> @@ -0,0 +1,427 @@
> +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (the "License").  You may not use
> +# this file except in compliance with the License.  You can obtain a copy
> +# in the file LICENSE in the source distribution or at
> +# https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
> +
> +# This file is dual-licensed and is also available under the following
> +# terms:
> +#
> +# Copyright (c) 2023, Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
> +# All rights reserved.
> +#
> +# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> +# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> +# are met:
> +# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> +#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> +# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> +#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> +#    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Is this worded properly for a dual license?  The paragraph about the Apache
License makes it sound like the Apache License must always be complied with:
"You may not use this file except in compliance with the License."

So I worry that this could be interpreted as:

    Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause

instead of

    Apache-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause

It needs to be the latter.

So I think the file header needs to be clarified w.r.t. the dual license.

Side note: can you please also include a SPDX-License-Identifier?

- Eric