lve module taint?

lve module taint?

[Rusty Russell]

Hi all,

        I still have this patch sitting in my queue for next merge
window; I missed the previous one.  Is it still current?

Thanks,
Rusty.

From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Subject: module: taint kernel when lve module is loaded
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:49:31 -0400

Cloudlinux have a product called lve that includes a kernel module. This
was previously GPLed but is now under a proprietary license, but the
module continues to declare MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") and makes use of some
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols. Forcibly taint it in order to avoid this.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Alex Lyashkov <umka@cloudlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: stable@kernel.org
---
 kernel/module.c |    4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
index 4edbd9c..9ad9ee9 100644
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -2730,6 +2730,10 @@ static int check_module_license_and_versions(struct module *mod)
 	if (strcmp(mod->name, "driverloader") == 0)
 		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
 
+	/* lve claims to be GPL but upstream won't provide source */
+	if (strcmp(mod->name, "lve") == 0)
+		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS
 	if ((mod->num_syms && !mod->crcs)
 	    || (mod->num_gpl_syms && !mod->gpl_crcs)

Re: lve module taint?

[Michael Tokarev]

On 19.09.2012 06:02, Rusty Russell wrote:

> From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
> Subject: module: taint kernel when lve module is loaded
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:49:31 -0400
> 
> Cloudlinux have a product called lve that includes a kernel module. This
> was previously GPLed but is now under a proprietary license, but the
> module continues to declare MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") and makes use of some
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols. Forcibly taint it in order to avoid this.

> +	/* lve claims to be GPL but upstream won't provide source */
> +	if (strcmp(mod->name, "lve") == 0)
> +		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);

This is setting a, in my opinion, rather bad precedent.  Next we'll
be adding various modules here due to various reasons.

I think this case should be pure political now, not technical.  Ie,
if some project declares itself as GPL, it is not kernel task to
verify that the sources are available or to enforce that.

Thanks,

/mjt

Re: lve module taint?

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:58:09AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 19.09.2012 06:02, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> > From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
> > Subject: module: taint kernel when lve module is loaded
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:49:31 -0400
> > 
> > Cloudlinux have a product called lve that includes a kernel module. This
> > was previously GPLed but is now under a proprietary license, but the
> > module continues to declare MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") and makes use of some
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols. Forcibly taint it in order to avoid this.
> 
> > +	/* lve claims to be GPL but upstream won't provide source */
> > +	if (strcmp(mod->name, "lve") == 0)
> > +		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE);
> 
> This is setting a, in my opinion, rather bad precedent.  Next we'll
> be adding various modules here due to various reasons.
> 
> I think this case should be pure political now, not technical.  Ie,
> if some project declares itself as GPL, it is not kernel task to
> verify that the sources are available or to enforce that.

But when such code is known to lie, we have the responsibility to
enforce it, right?  We already do this for other module, it's not the
first time, and hopefully we will not have to continue extending this
"blacklist" to more modules, but real-world experience tends to make me
thing otherwise :(

Rusty, no objection from me for the patch.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: lve module taint?

[Rusty Russell]

Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:58:09AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> On 19.09.2012 06:02, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> This is setting a, in my opinion, rather bad precedent.  Next we'll
>> be adding various modules here due to various reasons.

We have, that bridge has already been crossed.  I wasn't asking about
the patch itself.

My question was simply whether the lve module is still claiming to be
GPL without being compliant or not.

Cheers,
Rusty.