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: <20220315155304.GC11336@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:53:04 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, 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 at 10:26:17AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14 2022, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Vendor or device specific extensions for devices exposed to userspace
> > through the vfio-pci-core library open both new functionality and new
> > risks.  Here we attempt to provided formalized requirements and
> > expectations to ensure that future drivers both collaborate in their
> > interaction with existing host drivers, as well as receive additional
> > reviews from community members with experience in this area.
> >
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > Acked-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> 
> (...)
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..3a108d748681
> > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/vfio-pci-vendor-driver-acceptance.rst
> 
> What about Christoph's request to drop the "vendor" name?
> vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance.rst would match the actual
> title of the document, and the only drawback I see is that it is a bit
> longer.

I agree we should not use the vendor name

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.

> > +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 :)

Jason