linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control 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, 26 Mar 2024 08:57:29 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 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>,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

On 3/22/24 4:40 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:18:09 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
>> can you respond to Jason's email with the proposal for the new fwctl
>> subsystem and identify places you do not agree? That would provide more
>> concrete discussion points. Thanks,
> 
> Respond in what way, David? Comment on technical aspects of whether 
> a common class device with a discovery mechanism and a sprinkling of
> semantically meaningless fields can be implemented? Some trivial object
> hierarchy?
> 
> On whether someone can actually enforce any of the 4 "don't"s, and
> whether this interface is basically encouraging and giving a leg up
> to those willing to be dishonest?
> 
> Or should we go for another loop of me talking about openness and
> building common abstractions, and vendors saying how their way of
> doing basic configuration is so very special, and this is just for
> debug and security and because others.
> 
> There's absolutely no willingness to try and build a common interface
> here.

The proposal is an attempt at a common interface and common tooling to a
degree but independent of any specific subsystem of which many are
supported by the device.

Your responses continue to align with the notion that because the device
can spit out ethernet frames, all diagnostics, debugging, configuration,
etc. MUST go through networking APIs.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that devices can work for various use
cases without a netdev driver, and thus aspects of managing that device
should be done outside of a netdev driver.