Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:50:27 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: "Cai, Quanqing" <caiquanqing@gmail.com>, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>, John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: KDTRACE is gone? Message-ID: <200611230350.35351.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20061122214203.GA48004@what-creek.com> References: <2b22951e0611212109t69b01400q5eb0ba15b028ce68@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670611221016q5bd1bf84v4ef878391eb2a67a@mail.gmail.com> <20061122214203.GA48004@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3735824.iaKMFIVIY0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 22 November 2006 22:42, John Birrell wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:16:17PM -0500, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > Yeah, it could be done. However, the DTrace provider (providing > > BEGIN, END, and ERROR, and code that allows for other providers to > > hook in) is > 13,000 lines of code and comments, so it'd be a very > > non-trivial task. > > The DTrace provider isn't actually relevent to this discussion. That > is find staying as a kernel module and CDDL'd. > > The issue is the hooks that the DTrace modules register with. These > are very small bits of BSD licensed code that I write, and which > get added inline to existing BSD licensed sources like trap.c. These > little bits of code tend to require calling the DTrace kernel API or > methods and techniques defined by CDDL headers and not documented > anywhere else. Did you try to ask Sun to relicense just the relevant headers for us? =20 They seem to be very OpenSource friendly as of late and I can't see how=20 it would hurt them. > I have been very careful not to copy CDDL stuff into FreeBSD headers > for fear of causing FreeBSD legal problems in future like the > claims being made in the SCO vs IBM (Linux) litigation. Remember that > the OpenSolaris source is based on System V and Sun Microsystems have > extended it to include DTrace. As far as I understand IBM's arguments in the case - and I am not a=20 lawyer, so this might not mean much - they seem to belive that headers=20 describing an API can't be easily protected by a license. > I need to find an alternative to the KDTRACE implementation -- that's > why I removed it for now. > > I want to come up with a functional equivalent to the Solaris DTrace > implementation. Having it as an option (amongst a heap of other > options) that a user /might/ choose to compile in, isn't a good > design IMO. =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --nextPart3735824.iaKMFIVIY0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFZQx7XyyEoT62BG0RAlIyAJ91hzgJf8yjvG/Myfud79BaDB/k3ACdHfi3 A2VnkoVuSSs/9a6faBnYo7I= =HVod -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3735824.iaKMFIVIY0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200611230350.35351.max>