netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

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: <20240408181634.GR5383@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:16:34 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:46:35AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

> Really? So would you be making the same argument if it was
> Nvidia/Mellanox pushing the driver and they were exclusively making it
> just for Meta, Google, or some other big cloud provider? 

At least I would, yes.

> I suspect not. If nothing else they likely wouldn't disclose the
> plan for exclusive sales to get around this sort of thing. The fact
> is I know many of the vendors make proprietary spins of their
> firmware and hardware for specific customers. The way I see it this
> patchset is being rejected as I was too honest about the general
> plan and use case for it.

Regrettably this does happen quietly in the kernel. If you know the
right behind the scenes stuff you can start to be aware. That doesn't
mean it is aligned with community values or should be done/encouraged.

> This is what I am getting at. It just seems like we are playing games
> with semantics where if it is a vendor making the arrangement then it
> is okay for them to make hardware that is inaccessible to most, but if
> it is Meta then somehow it isn't.

With Meta it is obvious what is happening, and what is benefiting. If
a COTS vendor does it then we have to take a leap of faith a unique
feature will have wider applications - and many would require to see
an open source userspace to boot strap that. I don't think we always
get it right. Value judgements are often a bit murky like that.

Jason