linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver

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: <2023112707-feline-unselect-692f@gregkh>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 18:27:53 +0000
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
        Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:17:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:51:10PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > Ok, best of luck with this mess, I'll stop harping on it now and just
> > point out all of the other issues here.  First off, you all need to get
> > the network maintainers to agree that this driver is ok to do this way,
> > and I don't think that has happened yet, so I'll wait on reviewing the
> > series until that is resolved.
> 
> As I said already, I strongly disagree with the idea that the netdev
> maintainers get a global veto on what happens with mlx5 devices just
> because they sometimes have an ethernet port on the back of the card.

I understand you might disagree, however I hold their opinion in high
regard and want to ensure that they agree that exposing device-specific
debugging information for a device that deals with networking is ok to
do so in a device-specific misc device node and not through some other
way that other networking devices normally do (i.e. netlink or
some-other-such-thing.)

Note, device-specific character devices have almost always proven to be
a bad idea in the long run, I understand your immediate need to do
something like this, but remember that keeping it alive for the next 20+
years is going to be tough.

> This module is primarily (but not exclusively) for rdma related
> functionality, not netdev, and the RDMA maintainers Ack it.

In my mind, RDMA implies networking, as it's over a network connection,
but hey, I might be wrong :)

thanks,

greg k-h