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: <66a43c48cb6cc_200582942d@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:16:08 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, 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?

Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> I know this is a topic proposed for the maintainers summit, but given
> the number of people who seem to have an opinion and be interested in
> dicussing it, would a session at LPC be a better candidate ? I don't
> expect the maintainer summit to invite all relevant experts from all
> subsystems, that would likely overflow the room.
> 
> The downside of an LPC session is that it could easily turn into a
> heated stage fight, and there are probably also quite a few arguments
> that can't really be made in the open :-S

A separate LPC session for a subsystem or set of subsystems to explore
local passthrough policy makes sense, but that is not the primary
motivation for also requesting a Maintainer Summit topic slot. The
primary motivation is discussing the provenance and navigation of
cross-subsystem NAKs especially in an environment where the lines
between net, mem, and storage are increasingly blurry at the device
level.