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, 2 Apr 2024 21:48:32 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 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, Apr 02, 2024 at 05:32:44PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 14:57, David Ahern wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> [ Let me prefix this by noting that I'm speaking personally here, and
>   not representing the position of my employer. ]

<...>

>  you're getting maintainer pushback.

May I suggest you to take a short break, collect names of people who
participated in this discussion and check in git history/MAINTAINERS
file their contribution to the linux kernel?

After you do that, try to ask yourself if your response is still appropriate.

Thanks.

> 
> Do we need to go all the way back to operating systems 101 and point out
>  that one of the fundamental jobs of a kernel is to *abstract* the
>  hardware, and provide *services* to userspace rather than mere devices?
> 
> Frankly, this whole thread reads to me like certain vendors whining that
>  they weren't expecting to have to get their new features *reviewed* by
>  upstream — possibly they thought devlink params would just get rubber-
>  stamped — and now they're finding that the kernel's quality standards
>  still apply.
> Complaining that devlink params "don't scale" is disingenuous.  Patches
>  aren't languishing for want of reviewer resources; it's just that it
>  takes *submitter* time and effort to bring them up to the quality level
>  that's required, and occasionally the vendor has to (shock! horror!)
>  tell the world what one of their magic knobs actually *does*.
> 
> If all the configuration of these Complex Devices™ goes through fwctl
>  backdoors, where exactly is anyone going to discover the commonalities
>  to underlie the generic interfaces of the next generation?  What would
>  configuring plain vanilla netdevs be like today if, instead of a set of
>  well-defined cross-vendor APIs, ethtool (say) had been a mechanism to
>  write arbitrary values to hardware registers on the NIC?
> These commonalities are key to allowing a product category to mature.  I
>  realise vendors in many cases don't want that to happen, because mature
>  products are largely commoditised and thus don't command huge margins;
>  but Linux isn't here to serve vendors' interests at the expense of
>  users.
> 
> On 23/03/2024 01:27, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > It is obvious to everyone that in the AI era, everyone needs
> > customization
> 
> It's always possible to argue that the New Thing is qualitatively
>  different from anything that went before, that these "multibillion
>  gate devices" need to be able to break the rules.
> But the truth is, you aren't that special.
> 
> -e