Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-320-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To: "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: "Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
 "Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com>,
 "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
 "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
 "Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
 "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow a kthread to declare that it calls task_work_run()
In-reply-to: <a070b6bd-0092-405e-99d2-00002596c0bc@kernel.dk>
References: <20231204014042.6754-1-neilb@suse.de>,
 <20231204014042.6754-2-neilb@suse.de>,
 <e9a1cfed-42e9-4174-bbb3-1a3680cf6a5c@kernel.dk>,
 <170172377302.7109.11739406555273171485@noble.neil.brown.name>,
 <a070b6bd-0092-405e-99d2-00002596c0bc@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2023 09:27:19 +1100
Message-id: <170172883971.7109.15813436459590259773@noble.neil.brown.name>

On Tue, 05 Dec 2023, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/23 2:02 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> > It isn't clear to me what _GPL is appropriate, but maybe the rules
> > changed since last I looked..... are there rules?
> > 
> > My reasoning was that the call is effectively part of the user-space
> > ABI.  A user-space process can call this trivially by invoking any
> > system call.  The user-space ABI is explicitly a boundary which the GPL
> > does not cross.  So it doesn't seem appropriate to prevent non-GPL
> > kernel code from doing something that non-GPL user-space code can
> > trivially do.
> 
> By that reasoning, basically everything in the kernel should be non-GPL
> marked. And while task_work can get used by the application, it happens
> only indirectly or implicitly. So I don't think this reasoning is sound
> at all, it's not an exported ABI or API by itself.
> 
> For me, the more core of an export it is, the stronger the reason it
> should be GPL. FWIW, I don't think exporting task_work functionality is
> a good idea in the first place, but if there's a strong reason to do so,
> it should most certainly not be accessible to non-GPL modules. Basically
> NO new export should be non-GPL.

An alternate to exporting task_work_run() might be to call it from
try_to_freeze().  I think that too should only be called from a context
where no locks are held etc.  Obviously try_to_freeze would only call
task_work_run() if PF_RUNS_TASK_WORK were set.
I'm not sure this is a *good* idea, but it is an idea that would avoid
the export.

For now I change the export to _GPL.

Thanks,
NeilBrown