linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] vfio-pci: Provide reviewers and acceptance criteria for vendor drivers

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]

Message-ID: <87zglrf7fl.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 18:32:14 +0100
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        yishaih@...dia.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfio-pci: Provide reviewers and acceptance criteria
 for vendor drivers

On Tue, Mar 15 2022, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:53:04 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:26:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 14 2022, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:

>> In general I wonder if this is a bit too specific to PCI, really this
>> is just review criteria for any driver making a struct vfio_device_ops
>> implementation, and we have some specific guidance for migration here
>> as well.
>> 
>> Like if IBM makes s390 migration drivers all of this applies just as
>> well even though they are not PCI.
>
> Are you volunteering to be a reviewer under drivers/vfio/?  Careful,
> I'll add you ;)
>
> What you're saying is true of course and it could be argued that this
> sort of criteria is true for any new driver, I think the unique thing
> here that raises it to a point where we want to formalize the breadth
> of reviews is how significantly lower the bar is to create a device
> specific driver now that we have a vfio-pci-core library.  Shameer's
> stub driver is 100 LoC.  I also expect that the pool of people willing
> to volunteer to be reviewers for PCI related device specific drivers is
> large than we might see for arbitrary drivers.

Yes. Also, I expect that more people understand how a PCI driver works
than how an s390 channel subsystem driver works :)

I think we'll just have to hope that attempts to add e.g. migration
support to a driver outside of vfio-pci show up on the correct mailing
lists and that the right people notice it or can be pointed towards it.

>
>> > > +New driver submissions are therefore requested to have approval via
>> > > +Sign-off/Acked-by/etc for any interactions with parent drivers.  
>> > 
>> > s/Sign-off/Reviewed-by/ ?
>> > 
>> > I would not generally expect the reviewers listed to sign off on other
>> > people's patches.  
>> 
>> It happens quite a lot when those people help write the patches too :)
>
> This is what "etc" is for, the owners are involved and have endorsed it
> in some way, that's all we care about.

Fair enough.