Re: [PATCH] mm: Add new vma flag VM_LOCAL_CPU

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:29:22PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 15/05/18 15:03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > You're getting dangerously close to admitting that the entire point
> > of this exercise is so that you can link non-GPL NetApp code into the
> > kernel in clear violation of the GPL.
> 
> It is not that at all. What I'm trying to do is enable a zero-copy,
> synchronous, low latency, low overhead. highly parallel - a new modern
> interface with application servers.

... and fully buzzword compliant.

> You yourself had such a project that could easily be served out-of-the-box
> with zufs, of a device that wanted to sit in user-mode.

For a very different reason.  I think the source code to that project
is publically available; the problem is that it's not written in C.

> Sometimes it is very convenient and needed for Servers to sit in
> user-mode. And this interface allows that. And it is not always
> a licensing thing. Though yes licensing is also an issue sometimes.
> It is the reality we are living in.
> 
> But please indulge me I am curious how the point of signing /sbin/
> servers, made you think about GPL licensing issues?
> 
> That said, is your point that as long as user-mode servers are sloooowwww
> they are OK to be supported but if they are as fast as the kernel,
> (as demonstrated a zufs based FS was faster then xfs-dax on same pmem)
> Then it is a GPL violation?

No.  Read what Linus wrote:

   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

What you're doing is far beyond that exception.  You're developing in
concert a userspace and kernel component, and claiming that the GPL does
not apply to the userspace component.  I'm not a lawyer, but you're on
very thin ice.