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: <20240722073119.GA4252@unreal>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:31:19 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.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 Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 10:25:30PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:15:13PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > The upstream discussion has yielded the full spectrum of positions on
> > > > device specific functionality, and it is a topic that needs cross-
> > > > kernel consensus as hardware increasingly spans cross-subsystem
> > > > concerns. Please consider it for a Maintainers Summit discussion.
> > > 
> > > I'm with Greg on this ... can you point to some of the contrary
> > > positions?
> > 
> > This thread has that discussion:
> > 
> > http://lore.kernel.org/0-v1-9912f1a11620+2a-fwctl_jgg@nvidia.com
> > 
> > I do not want to speak for others on the saliency of their points, all I
> > can say is that the contrary positions have so far not moved me to drop
> > consideration of fwctl for CXL.
> > 
> > Where CXL has a Command Effects Log that is a reasonable protocol for
> > making decisions about opaque command codes, and that CXL already has a
> > few years of experience with the commands that *do* need a Linux-command
> > wrapper.
> > 
> > Some open questions from that thread are: what does it mean for the fate
> > of a proposal if one subsystem Acks the ABI and another Naks it for a
> > device that crosses subsystem functionality? Would a cynical hardware
> > response just lead to plumbing an NVME admin queue, or CXL mailbox to
> > get device-specific commands past another subsystem's objection?
> 
> My default answer would be to trust the maintainers of the relevant
> subsystems (or try to convince them when you disagree :-)).

You know, trust is a two-way street. If you want to trust maintainers,
they need to trust others as well. The situation where one maintainer
says "I don't trust you, so I will not allow you and other X maintainers
to do Y" is not a healthy situation.

> Not only should they know the technical implications best, they should also have
> a good view of the whole vertical stack, and the implications of
> pass-through for their ecosystem. 

It is wishful thinking. It is clearly not true for large subsystems
and/or complex devices.

Thanks