On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 01:39:03PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please do, I got rid of all of the DRIVER_VERSION crap in the
>> > drivers/usb/ tree a release or so ago, as they make no sense at all.
>> > The other defines are also really silly and can be cleaned up too.
>> >
>> > Want me to do that for drivers/input/ for you?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg "I'm a janitor now" k-h
>>
>>
>> Thing could get worse: you could become a documentalist like tglx turned into.
>>
>> For the fun, another weird thingie that I once stumbled upon in an
>> out-of-tree third-party module:
>>
>> MODULE_LICENSE("\x47\x50\x4c\x20\x76\x32");
>>
>> ... which was most likely from a GPL-shy closet Free software
>> advocate: this is "GPL v2" in ASCII.
>
> Hah, we've seen worse with people trying to put '0x00' in the middle of
> the string to fake out the string checking logic. Whenever stuff like
> that gets pointed out to the legal department of the company involved,
> stuff gets fixed fast,
Thanks!
FWIW, this was fixed fast alright when I pointed it to the software
team that had farted this.
This happened a couple years ago.
I have seen worse than using '0x00' once: a combo of a patched insmod
to remove all the MODULE_LICENSE checks especially on "Proprietary"
AND a patched kernel adding a hook in module.[c,h] and some core net
patched code to make userspace,
"look-ma-kernelspace-gpl-will-not-apply-here" modules possible to do
network packet filtering in userspace. Which was also a nice try but
another baseless fart, beside being also terrible from a perf and
reliabiility point of view.
The squirrelly thing was that only a handful of line of code were
modified: a few needles hidden in a giant haystack.
If there were an award for "Sneakiest f*ck-the-gpl attempt", these
folks would have been winning the trophy hands down with special jury
congratulations.
> trying to 'circumvent' a license check is really
> frowned apon by almost all legal juristictions :)
In the US, in a weird twist of unintended consequences, this might be
likely a violation of the infamous DMCA.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
From 1584465751453230624@xxx Sun Nov 19 04:04:52 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584342199971883013
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread