On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, at 04:51, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > I am not sure I follow the logic in the confusion claim above. Since the > applications define their own headers, they do not use the kernel source > at all. Therefore, there can be no question about any exceptions, and no > confusion. But perhaps I'm missing a turn here. Feel free to educate me. Most applications rely on one or another kernel header — this has been the norm for Linux kernel interface users for many years. The UAPI headers are installed on systems and wrapped explicitly for this reason. > As for the "duplication", I do not see it as harmful in any way. > And they do not re-declare, they declare. You're trying to create a > centralized language definition that did not exist previously. It is harmful, because these structures *need* to be exactly synchronised or the calls will fail. Or the data will be garbage. Not exposing them on UAPI just doesn't make it as obvious, but it is an issue needing to be addressed. Furthermore there's the problem of whether having to pick up the structures that are defined in a piece of source code that is purported to not be covered by the syscall exception — that would cause require making the userspace implementations of usbmon a derived work of the kernel, which in turn would make them GPL-2. > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/usb/mon.h > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > Yeah, that. You created the confusion first, and then resolved it > with licensing amendments. I didn't create the confusion. I stumbled across the confusion. Either the structure definition is not covered by the syscall exception, or it isn't. If it is covered, then we're all good: anyone can include the header, or copy it, or copy part of it, or redefine the structures in whichever language they prefer, and it's not a derived work of the kernel. If it is, then we have a bit of an issue, as libpcap is not considering itself a derived work of Linux and contains a copy of the same structures. So either we say that Paolo had the ability to release it under both licenses, or we're going to give a headache to libpcap. If we accept that Paolo released these structures under both licenses, then the syscall exception can be applied, if nothing else by sleight-of-hand by taking the MIT licensed version and restricting it. > Okay. Our documentation refers to _IO(), which is a system macro, > so we're not entirely self-containing. I can see an opening for > some sophistry here. > > Fortunately, include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h already includes > that "GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note" thing, so I think we're > clear in usbmon. You _also_ need the structure definition, or at least its size, for the _IO macro to be usable. Which is why it's important that syscall-level interfaces are made available in UAPI headers with exceptions. Now that does mean that mon_bin_hdr doesn't strictly need to be there…. but what's the point of not defining the structure that you _need_ to have to be able to read the data you're requesting? So in short as for "Why all this?" Because without this change, making a new userspace implementation of usbmon requires straight-out copying code from the kernel in not-quite-clearcut licensing environment. Exposing this on an UAPI header should address most of that, without tying your hands any more than already present for compatibility, and without diluting the licensing of the structures more than it is right now. Unless you plan to argue that libpcap is violating the kernel license, but I think that'd be making usbmon toxic enough that I wouldn't be the only one walking away. Anything else, beside not feeling that we need this? Diego
