Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Robert M. Stockmann
2004-04-27T23:59:16Z

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Tim Hockin wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:30:58AM +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
> > > What the hell do these two paragraphs have to do with each other?
> >
> > C99 coding style, more specific the use of unnamed and anonymous structures
> > and unions, allows the kernel programmer to interface, read glue, binary only
> > driver modules to interface with any linux kernel source tree.
>
> What the hell are you going on about? Unnamed structures are a
> syntactical construct and have ZILCH to do with runtime.

I thought so too, until your semi open-source link kit is linked to that
brand-new linux kernel source tree, and at the same time the binary
components of your link-kit have become incompatible with that newer kernel.

Result? one might even loose its data, upon booting that newly build
kernel and modules, in case your storage-controller has a binary only
link-kit as its driver.

> > The needed header files, which need to be read by the gcc compiler, contain
> > unnamed and annonymizes structures and unions. In the worst case scenario,
> > only the name of used variables are given and no info about variable type or
> > size are inside these headers files. gcc-2.95.3 fails to succesfully link these
>
> Opaque types have been available FOREVER.

sure, but can one qualify that as Open Source?

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net