linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: mctp: Add MCTP PCIe VDM transport 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: <e1314a38-5350-41cb-9ffa-82617eff67be@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:43:11 -0400
From: Adam Young <admiyo@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
To: YH Chung <yh_chung@...eedtech.com>, Jeremy Kerr
 <jk@...econstruct.com.au>,
 "matt@...econstruct.com.au" <matt@...econstruct.com.au>,
 "andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com"
 <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 BMC-SW <BMC-SW@...eedtech.com>
Cc: Khang D Nguyen <khangng@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mctp: Add MCTP PCIe VDM transport driver


On 7/17/25 03:17, YH Chung wrote:
>  From my perspective, the other MCTP transport drivers do make use of abstraction layers that already exist in the kernel tree. For example, mctp-i3c uses i3c_device_do_priv_xfers(), which ultimately invokes operations registered by the underlying I3C driver. This is effectively an abstraction layer handling the hardware-specific details of TX packet transmission.
>
> In our case, there is no standard interface—like those for I2C/I3C—that serves PCIe VDM. So, the proposed driver tries to introduce a unified interface, defined in mctp-pcie-vdm.h, to provide a reusable interface that allows developers to focus on hardware-specific implementation without needing to duplicate or rework the transport binding logic each time.
>
> Could you kindly share your thoughts or guidance on how the abstraction model used in our PCIe VDM driver compares to the existing abstractions used in I2C/I3C transport implementations?


Would the mailbox abstraction work for this?  It is what I am using in 
the MCTP over PCC code.  Perhaps a PCIe VDM mailbox implementation will 
have a wider use  than just MCTP.