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: <20240725194314.GS3371438@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:43:14 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:31:25PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> I don't think those are necessarily relevant examples, as far as device
> pass-through goes. Vendors have many times reverted to proprietary ways,
> and they still do, at least in the areas of the kernel I'm most active
> in. I've seen first hand a large SoC vendor very close to opening a
> significant part of their camera stack and changing their mind at the
> last minute when they heard they could possibly merge their code through
> a different subsystem with a pass-through blank cheque.

If someone came with a fully open source framework for (say) some
camera, with a passthrough kernel driver design, would you reject it
soley because it is passthrough based and you are scared that
something else will use it to do something not open source?

I wouldn't agree with that position, I think denying users useful open
source solutions out of fear is not what Linux should be doing.

Jason