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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ZozUJepl9_gnKnlv@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:09:41 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: 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?

Passthrough in general is useful, but the problem is that protocols
aren't designed with it in mind.  Look at the list of command that
affect too much state and we have to block in SCSI and NVMe.  And
in NVMe I'm fighting a constant fight in the technical working group
to not add new command that instantly disable the access control we've
built into NVMe passthrough.   So IMHO passthrough can be good idea,
but only if the protocol is designed for it, and protocol designer
generally have a hard time how software works at all, never mind
the futuristic concepts of layering, abstraction and access control.