linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user access

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, 15 Apr 2016 20:30:35 +0300
From:	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...n.nu>
To:	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
	dledford@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user
 access

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:01:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> > > > > This patch series removes the write() interface for user access in favor of an
> > > > > ioctl() based approach. This is in response to the complaint that we had
> > > > > different handlers for write() and writev() doing different things and expecting
> > > > > different types of data. See:
> > > > 
> > > > I think we should wait on applying these patches until we globally sort out
> > > > what to do with the rdma uapi.
> > > > 
> > > > It just doesn't make alot of sense for drivers to have their own personal
> > > > char devices. :(
> > > 
> > > I'm afraid I have to disagree at this time.  Someday we may have "1 char device
> > > to rule them all" but right now we don't have any line of sight to that
> > > solution.  It may be _years_ before we can agree to the semantics which will
> > > work for all high speed, kernel bypass, rdma, low latency, network devices.
> > 
> > You didn't ever try to come and work on the solution. We talked about
> > finite time frame (_months_) which is doable based on knowledge that user
> > space parts are developed by the same companies and all our future changes
> > will be in one subsystem.
> 
> How can you say that I am not working on a solution?
> 
> We spent most of last week discussing possible solutions and I am in support of
> a more common core.

Great, did you show it to other RDMA stakeholders except Intel?
I saw nothing posted on ML or proposed for initial discussion, which
will be held in the next week or two.

It is a great opportunity to you guys to start and respect Linux kernel
collaboration development model and to stop to try to do it in your
corporate way.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)