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: <21c3855b-69e7-44a2-9622-b35f218fecbf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:29:57 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 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>, 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 11:01 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:39:11 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> 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/?
>>
>>  From the reviewer perspective I think we will just remember.
>> If some newcomer tries to do refactoring they may benefit from seeing
>> this is a special device and more help is offered. Dunno if a newcomer
>> would look at the right docs.
>>
>> Whether it's more "paperwork" than we'll actually gain, I have no idea.
>> I may not be the best person to comment.
> 
> Are we going to go through and retro-actively move some of the drivers
> that are already there that are exclusive to specific companies? That
> is the bigger issue as I see it. It has already been brought up that
> idpf is exclusive. In addition several other people have reached out
> to me about other devices that are exclusive to other organizations.
> 
> I don't see any value in it as it would just encourage people to lie
> in order to avoid being put in what would essentially become a
> blacklisted directory.

Agreed.

> 
> If we are going to be trying to come up with some special status maybe
> it makes sense to have some status in the MAINTAINERS file that would
> indicate that this driver is exclusive to some organization and not
> publicly available so any maintenance would have to be proprietary.

I like that idea.
-- 
Florian