netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF 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: <ZDnNRs6sWb45e4F6@sashalap>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:01:42 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
        willemb@...gle.com, decot@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF
 driver

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:24:34PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:03:22 -0500 Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 2:16 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> > Sasha Levin wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 06:13:39PM -0700, Pavan Kumar Linga wrote:
>> >> How will this work when the OASIS driver is ready down the road?
>> >>
>> >> We'll end up with two "idpf" drivers, where one will work with hardware
>> >> that is not fully spec compliant using this Intel driver, and everything
>> >> else will use the OASIS driver?
>> >>
>> >> Does Intel plan to remove this driver when the OASIS one lands?
>> >>
>> >> At the very least, having two "idpf" drivers will be very confusing.
>> >
>> > One approach is that when the OASIS v1 spec is published, this driver
>> > is updated to match that and moved out of the intel directory.
>>
>> Yes. We don't want to have 2 idpf drivers in the upstream kernel.
>> It will be an Intel vendor driver until it becomes a standard.
>> Hope it will be OK to move the driver out of the intel directory when
>> that happens.
>
>As I said previously in [0] until there is a compatible, widely
>available implementation from a second vendor - this is an Intel
>driver and nothing more. It's not moving anywhere.

My concern isn't around the OASIS legal stuff, it's about the users who
end up using this and will end up getting confused when we have two (or
more) in-kernel "IDPF" drivers.

I don't think that moving is an option - it'll brake distros and upset
users: we can't rename drivers as we go because it has a good chance of
breaking users.

>I think that's a reasonable position which should allow Intel to ship
>your code and me to remain professional.

No concerns about OASIS or the current code, I just don't want to make
this a mess for the users.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha