Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chucklever@gmail.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Deven Bowers <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	snitzer@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com, agk@redhat.com,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	nramas@linux.microsoft.com, serge@hallyn.com,
	pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	mdsakib@microsoft.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	eparis@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@redhat.com,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	jaskarankhurana@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Integrity Policy Enforcement LSM (IPE)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:30:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200811193016.bdwh5kq7ci3yeme4@duo.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1597159969.4325.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2609 bytes --]

Hi!

> > > > (eg, a specification) will be critical for remote filesystems.
> > > > 
> > > > If any of this is to be supported by a remote filesystem, then we
> > > > need an unencumbered description of the new metadata format
> > > > rather than code. GPL-encumbered formats cannot be contributed to
> > > > the NFS standard, and are probably difficult for other
> > > > filesystems that are not Linux-native, like SMB, as well.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand what you mean by GPL encumbered formats.  The
> > > GPL is a code licence not a data or document licence.
> > 
> > IETF contributions occur under a BSD-style license incompatible
> > with the GPL.
> > 
> > https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html
> > 
> > Non-Linux implementers (of OEM storage devices) rely on such
> > standards processes to indemnify them against licensing claims.
> 
> Well, that simply means we won't be contributing the Linux
> implementation, right? However, IETF doesn't require BSD for all
> implementations, so that's OK.
> 
> > Today, there is no specification for existing IMA metadata formats,
> > there is only code. My lawyer tells me that because the code that
> > implements these formats is under GPL, the formats themselves cannot
> > be contributed to, say, the IETF without express permission from the
> > authors of that code. There are a lot of authors of the Linux IMA
> > code, so this is proving to be an impediment to contribution. That
> > blocks the ability to provide a fully-specified NFS protocol
> > extension to support IMA metadata formats.
> 
> Well, let me put the counterpoint: I can write a book about how
> linux

You should probably talk to your lawyer.

> device drivers work (which includes describing the data formats), for
> instance, without having to get permission from all the authors ... or
> is your lawyer taking the view we should be suing Jonathan Corbet,
> Alessandro Rubini, and Greg Kroah-Hartman for licence infringement?  In
> fact do they think we now have a huge class action possibility against
> O'Reilly  and a host of other publishers ...

Because yes, you can reverse engineer for compatibility reasons --
doing clean room re-implementation (BIOS binary -> BIOS documentation
-> BIOS sources under different license), but that was only tested in
the US, is expensive, and I understand people might be uncomfortable
doing that.

Best regards,
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]