netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] Adding GAUDI NIC code to habanalabs 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: <20200918152852.GW8409@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:28:52 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, izur@...ana.ai,
        Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, SW_Drivers <SW_Drivers@...ana.ai>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] Adding GAUDI NIC code to habanalabs driver

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:15:52PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:

> I'm sorry, but you won't be able to convince me here that I need to
> "enslave" my entire code to RDMA, just because my ASIC "also" has some
> RDMA ports.

You can't recreate common shared subsystems in a driver just because
you don't want to work with the subsystem.

I don't care what else the ASIC has. In Linux the netdev part is
exposed through netdev, the RDMA part through RDMA, the
totally-not-a-GPU part through drivers/misc.

It is always been this way. Chelsio didn't get to rebuild the SCSI
stack in their driver just because "storage is a small part of their
device"

Drivers are not allowed to re-implement I2C/SPI/etc without re-using
the comon code for that just because "I2C is a small part of their
device"

Exposing to userspace the creation of RoCE QPs and their related
objects are unambiguously a RDMA subsystem task. I don't even know how
you think you can argue it is not. It is your company proudly claiming
the device has 100G RoCE ports in all the marketing literature, after
all.

It is too bad the device has a non-standards compliant implementation
of RoCE so this will be a bit hard for you. Oh well.

Jason