linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support

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:   Wed, 19 May 2021 13:18:44 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        KVM General <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/18] KVM RISC-V Support

On 19/05/21 12:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> It is not a dumping ground for stuff that arch maintainers can not seem
>> to agree on, and it is not a place where you can just randomly play
>> around with user/kernel apis with no consequences.
>>
>> So no, sorry, not going to take this code at all.
>
> And to be a bit more clear about this, having other subsystem
> maintainers drop their unwanted code on this subsystem,_without_  even
> asking me first is just not very nice. All of a sudden I am now > responsible for this stuff, without me even being asked about it.
> Should I start throwing random drivers into the kvm subsystem for them
> to maintain because I don't want to?:)

(I did see the smiley), I'm on board with throwing random drivers in 
arch/riscv. :)

The situation here didn't seem very far from what process/2.Process.rst 
says about staging:

- "a way to keep track of drivers that aren't up to standards", though 
in this case the issue is not coding standards or quality---the code is 
very good---and which people "may want to use"

- the code could be removed if there's no progress on either changing 
the RISC-V acceptance policy or ratifying the spec

Of course there should have been a TODO file explaining the situation. 
But if you think this is not the right place, I totally understand; if 
my opinion had any weight in this, I would just place it in arch/riscv/kvm.

The RISC-V acceptance policy as is just doesn't work, and the fact that 
people are trying to work around it is proving it.  There are many ways 
to improve it:

- get rid of it;

- provide a path to get an exception;

- provide a staging place sot hat people to do their job of contributing 
code to Linux (e.g. arch/riscv/staging/kvm).

If everything else fail, I guess we can place it in 
drivers/virt/riscv/kvm, even though that's just as silly a workaround. 
It's a pity because the RISC-V virtualization architecture has a very 
nice design, and the KVM code is also a very good example of how to do 
things right.

Paolo

> If there's really no other way to do this, than to put it in staging,
> let's talk about it.  But saying "this must go here" is not a
> conversation...