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: <ZrHNTBJV5aybQrum@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:14:20 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	shiju.jose@...wei.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 11:22:23AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 09:13:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > I think a solid consensus on the topics above would be really useful for
> > gpu/accel too. We're still busy with more pressing community/ecosystem
> > building needs, but gpu fw has become rather complex and it's not
> > stopping. And there's random other devices attached too nowadays, so fwctl
> > makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure GPU is going to need fwctl too, the GPU's are
> going to have the same issues as NIC does. I see people are already
> struggling with topics like how to get debug traces out of the GPU FW.
> 
> > But for me the more important stuff would be some clear guidelines like
> > what should be in other more across-devices subsystems like edac (or other
> > ras features), what should be in functional subsystems like netdev, rdma,
> > gpu/accel, ... whatever else, and what should be exposed through some
> > special purpose subsystems like hwmon.
> 
> In my mind the most important part is that fwctl is not exclusive, the
> FW interface and things being manipulated must be sharable or blocked
> from fwctl. We should never get in a situation where a fwctl
> implementation becomes a reason we cannot have a functional subsystem
> interface.

Hm still not clear to me how you want to achive that, but I guess best
I'll jump over to the fwctl thread and ask about those details there.

> > We've got plenty of experience in enforcing such a community contract with
> > vendors, but the hard part is creating a clear and ideally concise
> > documentation page I can just point vendors at as the ground truth.
> 
> Well, I tried with the documentation in the fwctl patch series..
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/6-v2-940e479ceba9+3821-fwctl_jgg@nvidia.com/

I'll head over and drop some acks and comments.
-Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch