linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] HW accel subsystem

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:   Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:11:46 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-accelerators@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        ogabbay@...ana.ai, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] HW accel subsystem

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:17 PM Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>
> Per discussion in on the Habana Labs driver submission
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190123000057.31477-1-oded.gabbay@gmail.com/),
> there seems to be time to create a separate subsystem for hw accellerators
> instead of letting them proliferate around the tree (and/or in misc).
>
> There's difference in opinion on how stringent the requirements are for
> a fully open stack for these kind of drivers. I've documented the middle
> road approach in the first patch (requiring some sort of open low-level
> userspace for the kernel interaction, and a way to use/test it).
>
> Comments and suggestions for better approaches are definitely welcome.

We probably want to move drivers/misc/mic together with the others
as well. We could even move arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu*/
for another historic example.

        Arnd