netdev - Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

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: <20240709122547.GC6668@unreal>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:25:47 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgg@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:01:06PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 03:26:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:

<...>

> > It sets common expectations for
> > device designers, distribution maintainers, and kernel developers. It is
> > complimentary to the Linux-command path for operations that need deeper
> > kernel coordination.
> 
> Yes, it's a good start, BUT by circumventing the network control plane,
> the network driver maintainers rightfully are worried about this as
> their review comments seem to be ignored here.  The rest of us
> maintainers can't ignore that objection, sorry.

Can you please point to the TECHNICAL review comments that were
presented and later ignored?

I don't see any, but I and probably Jonathan who posted in-depth
articles in LWN might have missed them.

Thanks