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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240729133839.GDZqebX1LXB-Pt7_iO@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:38:39 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
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, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 01:45:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> One of the key bits of feedback we've had on that series is that it
> should be integrated with EDAC.  Part of the reason being need to get
> appropriate RAS expert review.

If you mean me with that, my only question back then was: if you're going to
integrate it somewhere and instead of defining something completely new - you
can simply reuse what's there. That's why I suggested EDAC.

IOW, the question becomes, why should it be a completely new thing and not
part of EDAC?

That's all.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette