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: <20240728153432.GE30973@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:34:32 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: 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 Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 05:16:28PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 02:18:26PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 05:16:08PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Would there be enough space at the maintainers' summit for all the
> > relevant people to join the discussion ?
> 
> Who exactly would you consider the "relevant people" here?  It's been a
> wide-ranging conversation/thread :)

I'd say the maintainers of the related subsystems/drivers, or the
relevant open-source stacks, as well as the people who are pushing for a
change, and overall the main stakeholders who took part in the
discussions so far. I don't think it would be very nice to discuss this
topic and make a decision behind closed doors while excluding some of
those people from the process.

I have opinions on the overall topic, but mostly related to cameras, so
I wouldn't consider myself as relevant when it comes to net/mem/storage,
mlx5 or fwctl in particular.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart