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: <20230414152744.4fd219f9@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:27:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...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 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:01:42 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote:
>> 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.

Minor pain for backports but I don't think we need to rename anything,
just move.

Or we can just leave it be under intel/, since there are not other
participant now. Unless perhaps under google/ is a better option?

Drivers are organized by the vendor for better or worse. We have a
number of drivers under the "wrong directly" already. Companies merge /
buy each others product lines, there's also some confusion about common
IP drivers. It's all fine, whatever. 

Users are very, very unlikely to care.

>> 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.

It's not a standard until someone else actually adopts it. What stops
all the other vendors from declaring that their driver interface is a
standard now, too?

We have a long standing rule in netdev against using marketing language.