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]

Message-ID: <20240401123003.GC73174@unreal>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 15:30:03 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	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>,
	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 Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:57:29AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> 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.

HNS driver is a good example of such device. It has nothing to do with
netdev and needs common and reliable way to configure FW.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240308105443.1130283-1-huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240322163201.GF66976@ziepe.ca/

Thanks