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: <20240729152943.000009af@Huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:29:43 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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, 29 Jul 2024 15:38:39 +0200
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> 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.

Ah fair enough. I'd taken stronger meaning from what you said than
you intended. Thanks for the clarification.

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

So that particular feedback perhaps doesn't apply here.

I still have a concern with things ending up in fwctl that
are later generalized and how that process can happen.

Jonathan