Well, it's not that easy.
The current situation si clear, if someone uses a binary Blob, then he taints the kernel and the Kernel - Devs are no longer responsible for anything that happens. (Terms of Support)
An Opensource kernel-Module with Binary Userspace has several security, stability and maintainability Problems.
What if a change in the in-Kernel-Interfaces propagated to the Opensource-Module causes strange behavior, because the writer of the binary part made several assumptions about the Kernel-Module which are no longer true?
What if the binary part causes some security-Risk to the whole kernel? - The kernel is NOT tainted if the module is Opensource!
So the kernel-Devs could be blamed for Errors caused by some binary Thingy which they have no control over!
And thus are only parts of the concerns.
The kernel evolves every day, countless changes and patches.
And while the devs work hard to keep the userspace API unchanged, this can not always be achieved and it may be necessary to sacrifice API-Stability for sanity and security of the whole Kernel itself.
And it would NOT be ok, if just the presence of some binary driver, which depends on some stable API in a DRM-Module, would keep the devs from making significant and beneficial changes to the whole infrastructure.
So i say, if the Devs have concerns, they know why!
There are some really good points and its a matter of trust, trust in companies that don't care about the kernel, and only look at their Profit. I would not let such ppl. control my box or the further development of Linux.
Who knows...maybe this binary thing makes screenshots of your desktop every 15 seconds and emails them to the NSA...who knows..?
Things are not always as obvious as they seem...
greetings,
me
The current situation si clear, if someone uses a binary Blob, then he taints the kernel and the Kernel - Devs are no longer responsible for anything that happens. (Terms of Support)
An Opensource kernel-Module with Binary Userspace has several security, stability and maintainability Problems.
What if a change in the in-Kernel-Interfaces propagated to the Opensource-Module causes strange behavior, because the writer of the binary part made several assumptions about the Kernel-Module which are no longer true?
What if the binary part causes some security-Risk to the whole kernel? - The kernel is NOT tainted if the module is Opensource!
So the kernel-Devs could be blamed for Errors caused by some binary Thingy which they have no control over!
And thus are only parts of the concerns.
The kernel evolves every day, countless changes and patches.
And while the devs work hard to keep the userspace API unchanged, this can not always be achieved and it may be necessary to sacrifice API-Stability for sanity and security of the whole Kernel itself.
And it would NOT be ok, if just the presence of some binary driver, which depends on some stable API in a DRM-Module, would keep the devs from making significant and beneficial changes to the whole infrastructure.
So i say, if the Devs have concerns, they know why!
There are some really good points and its a matter of trust, trust in companies that don't care about the kernel, and only look at their Profit. I would not let such ppl. control my box or the further development of Linux.
Who knows...maybe this binary thing makes screenshots of your desktop every 15 seconds and emails them to the NSA...who knows..?
Things are not always as obvious as they seem...
greetings,
me
Comment