cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c

[Scott Long]

Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:42:14AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
>>>> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> Stephan Uphoff wrote:
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>> ups         2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FreeBSD src repository
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Modified files:
>>>>>>>>   sys/amd64/amd64      pmap.c 
>>>>>>>>   sys/i386/i386        pmap.c 
>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>> Modify TLB invalidation handling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed by:    alc@, peter@
>>>>>>>> MFC after:      1 week
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it
>>>>>>> was done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>> I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes.
>>>>>>   
>>>>> Alas, we don't live in an ideal world.  If we did, our commit
>>>>> messages would always follow the well-known guideline:
>>>>>
>>>>> 0. Tell the essence of the change.
>>>>> 1. Give the reason for the change.
>>>>> 2. Explain the change unless it's trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-)
>>> Was the change based on a document under NDA?  Then this case raises
>>> an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer
>>> is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under
>>> NDA?  Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a
>>> typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've
>>> never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say
>>> that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody
>>> can RTFS. :-)
>>>
>> Wow, that was painful to read.  NDAs that specifically allow source
>> code licensing and distribution are quite common.  They even get written
>> and reviewed by lawyers! =-)
> 
> It's a good news!  But what about explaining the code to the public?
> 
> - Mr. Developer, why does it take an ugly hack to make the device work?
> - Can't tell ya, I'm under NDA.
> 

I think you have to respect that John and Stephan were doing the right 
thing with this.  This was no different than a security fix that gets
committed before the vulnerability is disclosed.  No one seems to get
upset that the security team operates this way.

Scott