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 2BD34C433FE for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240725AbiKQSoO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:44:14 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44880 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240579AbiKQSn7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:43:59 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209BB7A35F; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1668710638; x=1700246638; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2GXtbg89YeODqFpqT9naISwspE1iONVHN77+IyVVVsc=; b=bysL5qg0EIAMjytEfHSgaUUABswmpVL4E/c22lKF4UxSPREPCMRBYhBF lOTcy4yX+fT+nAD+B197VyFptPERoWwbeIg9lckDxnFBiHnSYiKoWNSaB oYABHwB9OlhBXvhmdwR0kqtoofCZCD59kTdPeixa3LSH2Kv1PDQGxOMdB hp1MSaRXgs6FIxwZECKCN0syGKlROucozf2wXc+XTv4Kz4gDFg9LqcQYl LukfEKiCfiXBFOtsxH9WB6Suxo8QbfKZXnp0iLmC6GZTDdDsfH8zUgj4C L+5f1Md0EvhoHxdK6PEsah0S/zKsSlrdvDI3UcsnB8VU7GKb3j1Xx59+B A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10534"; a="300474667" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,172,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="300474667" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2022 10:43:57 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10534"; a="814623941" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,172,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="814623941" Received: from vrgatne-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.115.197]) ([10.209.115.197]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2022 10:43:57 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] selftest/x86/meltdown: Add a selftest for meltdown Content-Language: en-US To: Greg KH Cc: Aaron Lu , Dave Hansen , Tony Luck , "Yin, Fengwei" , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "Huang, Ying" , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/16/22 22:10, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:57:22PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 11/14/22 22:54, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> I came to the conclusion that this work is OK to submit with all of the >>>> steps I listed above (copyright notices, license terms and relicensing) >>>> by strictly following all of the processes required by my employer. >>>> >>>> This does not include a Signed-off-by from a corporate attorney. >>> Please get that, as that is what I asked for in order for us to be able >>> to accept this type of change. >> Hi Greg, >> >> Can you share any more of what triggered this new requirement? > You are taking source from a non-Intel developer under a different > license and adding copyright and different license information to it. > Because of all of that, I have the requirement that I want to know that > Intel legal has vetted all of this and agrees with the conclusions that > you all are stating. I rarely speak "for Intel". But, this is one case where I believe that I can. The Intel processes have been thoroughly and diligently followed here. Speaking for Intel: yes, this has been vetted and those statements are as official as a statement from Intel can be. Also, to reiterate my earlier offer: I believe Aaron can be flexible in both the license under which this is submitted and the presence of an explicit Intel copyright notice. If modifications there would help ease your concerns, we'd be happy to explore changes. I also recognize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion about what constitutes a 'valid' licensing decision. It's quite possible that the advice we're getting from folks at Intel differs the advise that others get. If that's happening, I'd love to find a way forward that allows that legitimate difference of opinion to persist while also getting a selftest in the kernel that I believe will find real bugs.