Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 07/14] bpf: expand BPF syscall with program load/unload

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:26:14AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > If you want to add GPL-only functions in the future, that would be one
>> > thing.  But if someone writes a nice eBPF compiler, and someone else
>> > writes a little program that filters on network packets, I see no
>> > reason to claim that the little program is a derivative work of the
>> > kernel and therefore must be GPL.
>>
>> I think we have to draw a line somewhere. Say, tomorrow I want
>> to modify libpcap to emit eBPF based on existing tcpdump syntax.
>> Would it mean that tcpdump filter strings are GPLed? Definitely not,
>> since they existed before and can function without new libpcap.
>> But if I write a new packet filtering program in C, compile it
>> using LLVM->eBPF and call into in-kernel helper functions
>> (like bpf_map_lookup_elem()),  I think it's exactly the derivative work.
>> It's analogous to kernel modules. If module wants to call
>> export_symbol_gpl() functions, it needs to be GPLed. Here all helper
>> functions are GPL. So we just have a blank check for eBPF program.
>
> I agree, these eBFP programs should be GPL-compatible licensed as well.

I think I'd be happy with an export_symbol_gpl analogue.  I might
argue that bpf_map_lookup_elem shouldn't be gpl-only, though.
Something like "look up the uid that opened a port," on the other
hand, maybe should be.

--Andy
--
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/