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: <20240725132035.GF7022@unreal>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:20:35 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
	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 Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:02:13PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 2:23 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:26:38AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:02 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > > <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > >
> > > It would be great to define what are the free software communities
> > > here. Distros and final users are also "free software communities" and
> > > they do not care about niche use cases covered by proprietary
> > > software.
> >
> > Are you certain about that?
> 
> As a user, and as an open source Distro developer I have a small hint.
> But you could also ask users what they think about not being able to
> use their notebook's cameras. The last time that I could not use some
> basic hardware from a notebook with Linux was 20 years ago.

Lucky you, I still have consumer hardware (speaker) that doesn't work
with Linux, and even now, there is basic hardware in my current
laptop (HP docking station) that doesn't work reliably in Linux.

> 
> >
> > > They only care (and should care) about normal workflows.
> >
> > What is a normal workflow?
> > Does it mean that if user bought something very expensive he
> > should not be able to use it with free software, because his
> > usage is different from yours?
> >
> > Thanks
> 
> It means that we should not block the standard usage for 99% of the
> population just because 1% of the users cannot do something fancy with
> their device.

Right, the problem is that in some areas the statistics slightly different.
99% population is blocked because 1% of the users don't need it and
don't think that it is "normal" flow.

> 
> Let me give you an example. When I buy a camera I want to be able to
> do Video Conferencing and take some static photos of documents. I do
> not care about: automatic makeup, AI generated background, unicorn
> filters, eyes recentering... But we need to give a way to vendors to
> implement those things closely, without the marketing differentiators,
> vendors have zero incentive to invest in Linux, and that affects all
> the population.
> 
> This challenge seems to be solved for GPUs. I am using my AMD GPU
> freely and my nephew can install the amdgpu-pro proprietary user space
> driver to play duke nukem (or whatever kids play now) at 2000 fps.
> 
> There are other other subsystems that allow vendor passthrough and
> their ecosystem has not collapsed.

Yes, I completely agree with you on that.

> 
> Can we have some general guidance of what is acceptable? Can we define
> together the "normal workflow" and focus on a *full* open source
> implementation of that?

I don't think that is possible to define "normal workflow". Requirement
to have open-source counterpart to everything exposed through UAPI is a
valid one. I'm all for that.

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> Ricardo Ribalda