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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <e5c565f2-a552-cd40-17dd-bdc1fe39f20b@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:53:42 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 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 05/04/2024 15:24, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Why not? Just because we are not commercially selling it doesn't mean
> we couldn't look at other solutions such as QEMU. If we were to
> provide a github repo with an emulation of the NIC would that be
> enough to satisfy the "commercial" requirement?
> 
> The fact is I already have an implementation, but I would probably
> need to clean up a few things as the current setup requires 3 QEMU
> instances to emulate the full setup with host, firmware, and BMC. It
> wouldn't be as performant as the actual hardware but it is more than
> enough for us to test code with. If we need to look at publishing
> something like that to github in order to address the lack of user
> availability I could start looking at getting the approvals for that.
Personally I think that this would vitiate any legitimate objections
 anyone could have to this driver.  The emulation would be a functional
 spec for the device, and (assuming it's open source, including the
 firmware) would provide a basis for anyone attempting to build their
 own hardware to the same interface.  As long as clones aren't
 prevented by some kind of patent encumbrance or whatever, this would
 be more 'open' than many of the devices users _can_ get their hands on
 today.
The way this suggestion/offer/proposal got dismissed and ignored in
 favour of spurious arguments about DMABUF speaks volumes.

-e