netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc 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: <20240402162106.11112e99@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:21:06 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@...radead.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@...db.de>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Leonid Bloch
 <lbloch@...dia.com>, Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed
 <saeedm@...dia.com>, Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
 Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:46:32 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 02:36:07PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > FWIW, I've been trying to push RDMA away from driver created sysfs for
> > > a while now. Aside from the API complexity, implementations have
> > > messed up using the sysfs APIs and resulted in some significant
> > > problems :(  
> >
> > Sure, agreed, but off-topic.  
> 
> It is not - I don't want a huge amount of sysfs in drivers to replace
> what fwctl will do for pretty solid technical reasons.
> 
> I do object, as snarky as I was, to you saying RDMA should take on a
> whole bunch of read/write sysfs in drivers that netdev would not
> accept as a "reasonable" direction.

Repeating myself a bit - I'm not saying you should take the sysfs
patches. Just that RDMA configuration belongs in the RDMA subsystem.
I don't want to suggest another solution, because frankly given
our "no direct FW interface exposure" I don't have much experience
maintaining such APIs upstream. It'd be vain of me to make suggestions.
Also I don't want to sound like I'm giving you my "blessing" to do
whatever, since my personal beliefs(?) remain unchanged. But they
carry little weight when netdevs or traffic which ends up in netdev
are not involved.