Reverse engineering (was Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsdayscenario)
From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 16:49:09 EST
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:41 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:13 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Let's hope the rev-eng people do it the right way, by having one team
write a document, and a totally separate team write the driver from
that document.
Isn't it also legal for a single person or team to capture all IO
to/from the device with a bus analyzer or kernel debugger and write a
driver from that, as long as you don't disassemble the original driver?
It's still legally shaky. The "Chinese wall" approach I described above
is beyond reproach, and that's where Linux needs to be.
I know you are not a lawyer but do you have a pointer or two? As long
as we are REing for interoperability I've never read anything to
indicate the approach I described could be a problem even in the US.
The _potential_ for problems is very high:
1) [ref Alan's email] copying programming sequences
2) Lack of Chinese wall requires TRUST and EVIDENCE that you did the
rev-eng without "source code that fell off the back of a truck" [i.e.
illegally obtained] or "docs that fell off the back of a truck."
3) Lack of Chinese wall increases the likelihood that a SCOX or other
entity could use that as a legal weapon against Linux.
In Linux, I really have no way of knowing how questionable a driver
submission is, if it did not arrive from the Chinese wall approach, or a
known hacker with a valid path to hardware docs/engineers/code. Past
experience shows that Mr. Unknown Hacker is likely to take legal
shortcuts when writing the driver.
If I accept code of highly questionable origin, then I put Linux in
jeopardy.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/