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: <20240726175633.GA12773@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:56:33 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, 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 Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 12:01:00PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-07-26 at 16:11 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:02:27AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> [...]
> > > Describing how they implement those algorithms is a patent
> > > minefield and their differentiating factor.
> 
> Just on this argument: The Patent Shield around Linux provided by OIN
> is pretty strong and allows us (and entities that contribute to Linux)
> to ignore most patent problems because someone else is looking out for
> them.  OIN is actually free to join if any company would like to
> benefit directly from the Linux Patent Shield:
> 
> https://openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/member-benefits/
> 
> > Those are also arguments I've heard many times before. The
> > differentiating factor for cameras today is mostly in userspace ISP
> > control algorithms, and nobody is telling vendors they need to open
> > all that.
> > 
> > When it comes to patents, we all know how software patents is a
> > minefield, and hardware is also affected. I can't have much sympathy
> > for this argument though, those patents mostly benefit the largest
> > players in the market, and those are the ones who currently claim
> > they can't open anything due to patents.
> 
> In order to get a patent, the claimed invention has to be made public,
> so if they hold the patent there should be no problem.  If there is a
> problem opening something because it infringes on someone else's patent
> and they might see it, then OIN, above, is usually a good answer if the
> patent is owned by another ecosystem contributor or an OIN signatory. 
> For patent contortia (like MPEG) and patent trolls, it's more
> problematic, but, again, OIN can provide help.

While I agree with the above in theory, in practice the patent argument
is raised by large SoC vendors. There's one particular company well
known for having engineering managed by lawyers...

As I said, I don't sympathize with their arguments. The patent mess has
been mostly created by those large actors who benefit the most from it.
They can't at the same time claim that they can't disclose anything due
to fear of patent infringement.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart