netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 01/15] virtchnl: add virtchnl version 2 ops

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230403163025.5f40a87c@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 16:30:25 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>
Cc:     Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        shiraz.saleem@...el.com, emil.s.tantilov@...el.com,
        willemb@...gle.com, decot@...gle.com, joshua.a.hay@...el.com,
        sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>,
        Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
        Phani Burra <phani.r.burra@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 01/15] virtchnl: add virtchnl
 version 2 ops

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:54:33 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > The noise about this driver being "a standard" is quite confusing.
> > 
> > Are you considering implementing any of it?
> > 
> > I haven't heard of anyone who is yet, so I thought all this talk of
> > a standard is pretty empty from the technical perspective :(  
> 
> Just that they seem to be pushing it to become a standard through OASIS,
> as they infer by pointing to their OASIS docs in this patch, and I was 
> under the (mistaken?) impression that this would be the One Driver for 
> any device that implemented the HW/FW interface, kinda like virtio.  If 
> that's true, then why would the driver live under the Intel directory?

Fair point. But standards are generally defined by getting interested
parties together and agreeing. Not by a vendor taking a barely deployed
implementation to some unfamiliar forum and claiming it's a standard.

I think it should be 100% clear that to netdev this is just another
(yet another?) Ethernet driver from Intel, nothing more.
Maybe I should say this more strongly, given certain rumors... Here:

Reviewing / merging of this driver into the tree should not be
interpreted as netdev recognizing or supporting idpf as any sort
of a standard. This is our position until the driver is in fact
adopted by other vendors. Attempts to misrepresent our position 
and any claims that merging of this *vendor driver* constitutes 
adoption of the standard will result in removal of the driver.

Is that helpful? There seems to be a lot of FUD around IDPF.
I'd prefer to stay out of it.