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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:13 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:53:21AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > You said no to the devlink parameters as a way to tune an ASIC.
> 
> What? When?

You said you already rejected it at the very start of this discussion
and linked to the video recording of the rejection discussion:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231019165055.GT3952@nvidia.com/

This session was specifically on the 600 FW configuration parameters
that mlx5 has. This is something that is done today on non-secure boot
systems with direct PCI access on sysfs and would be absorbed into
this driver on secure-boot systems. Ie nothing really changes from the
broader ecosystem perspective.

The discussion starts at time index 22:11.

Dave (IIRC? sorry) is talking about unique things and suggesting
devlink. Many people in the audiance seem to support this idea

27:00 -> 28:00 you repeated this thread's argument about said NO
"occasionally you are allowed to use [devlink parameters] them"

At 29 you said just keep it all out of tree.

Oh, I chimed in around 30:00 saying it is not the kernel maintainers
job to force standardization. This is a user problem.

31:25 you said again "nothing"

31:30 S390 teams would like this and pushed back against "keep it all
out of tree" describing the situation as a "deadlock".

33:00 you said need two implementors for device specific parameters,
which misses the point of the discussion, IMHO.

And this was at the Dublin LPC, so over a year ago.

I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is
your vision to solve all these user problems?

Jason