netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 09:11:19 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	 <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko
 <jiri@...nulli.us>,  netdev@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,  Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
 davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface

On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 17:11 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Again, I would say we look at the blast radius. That is how we should
> be measuring any change. At this point the driver is self contained
> into /drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/. It isn't exporting anything
> outside that directory, and it can be switched off via Kconfig.

I personally think this is the most relevant point. This is just a new
NIC driver, completely self-encapsulated. I quickly glanced over the
code and it looks like it's not doing anything obviously bad. It really
looks like an usual, legit, NIC driver.

I don't think the fact that the NIC itself is hard to grasp for anyone
outside <organization> makes a difference. Long time ago Greg noted
that drivers has been merged for H/W known to have a _single_ existing
instance (IIRC, I can't find the reference on top of my head, but back
then was quite popular, I hope some other old guy could remember).

To me, the maintainership burden is on Meta: Alex/Meta will have to
handle bug report, breakages, user-complains (I guess this last would
be the easier part ;). If he/they will not cope with the process we can
simply revert the driver. I would be quite surprised if such situation
should happen, but the impact from my PoV looks minimal.

TL;DR: I don't see any good reason to not accept this - unless my quick
glance was too quick and very wrong, but it looks like other has
similar view.

Cheers,

Paolo