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: <c0f643ee-2dee-428c-ac5f-2fd59b142c0e@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:39:11 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: pabeni@...hat.com, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
 Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface



On 4/10/2024 10:35 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:12:18 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> For these kind of unused drivers, I think it would be legit to
>>>> disallow any internal/external api changes. Just do that for some
>>>> normal driver, then benefit from the changes in the unused driver.
>>>
>>> Unused is a bit strong, and we didn't put netdevsim in a special
>>> directory. Let's see if more such drivers appear and if there
>>> are practical uses for the separation for scripts etc?
>>
>> The practical use I see that the reviewer would spot right away is
>> someone pushes a feature implemented in this unused driver only.
>> Say it would be a clear mark for a driver of lower category.
>> For the person doing API change it would be an indication that he
>> does not have that cautious to not to break anything in this driver.
>> The driver maintainer should be the one to deal with potential issues.
> 
> Hm, we currently group by vendor but the fact it's a private device
> is probably more important indeed. For example if Google submits
> a driver for a private device it may be confusing what's public
> cloud (which I think/hope GVE is) and what's fully private.
> 
> So we could categorize by the characteristic rather than vendor:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/${term}/fbnic/
> 
> I'm afraid it may be hard for us to agree on an accurate term, tho.
> "Unused" sounds.. odd, we don't keep unused code, "private"
> sounds like we granted someone special right not took some away,
> maybe "exclusive"? Or "besteffort"? Or "staging" :D  IDK.

Do we really need that categorization at the directory/filesystem level? 
cannot we just document it clearly in the Kconfig help text and under 
Documentation/networking/?
-- 
Florian