Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264496AbUD0X7Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:59:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264515AbUD0X7Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:59:16 -0400 Received: from stokkie.demon.nl ([82.161.49.184]:2453 "HELO stokkie.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264496AbUD0X7L (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:59:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:59:08 +0200 (CEST) From: "Robert M. Stockmann" To: Tim Hockin cc: Michael Poole , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license In-Reply-To: <20040427234136.GA17801@hockin.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.2 (ftp://crashrecovery.org/pub/linux/amavis/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1711 Lines: 40 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/