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: <328C1186-268E-49E9-A31C-40BFF9554C49@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 20:13:18 -0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?

On August 6, 2024 8:06:09 PM EDT, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 08:33:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>> 
>> > For the specific issue of discussing fwctl, the Plumbers session would
>> > be better because it can likely gather all interested parties.
>> 
>> Keep in mind fwctl is already at the end of a long journey of
>> conference discussions and talks spanning 3 years back now. It now
>> represents the generalized consensus between multiple driver
>> maintainers for at least one side of the debate.
>> 
>> There was also a fwctl presentation at netdev conf a few weeks ago.
>> 
>> In as far as the cross-subsystem NAK, I don't expect more discussion
>> to result in any change to people's opinions. RDMA side will continue
>> to want access to the shared device FW, and netdev side will continue
>> to want to deny access to the shared device FW.
>
>As I mentioned before, this is what I hoped to mediate. The on-list
>discussion has seem to hit a deficit of trust roadblock, not a deficit
>of technical merit.
>
>All I can say is the discussion is worth a try. With respect to a
>precedent for a stalemate moving forward, I point to the MGLRU example.
>That proposal had all of the technical merit on the list, but was not
>making any clear progress to being merged. It was interesting to watch
>that all thaw in real time at LSF/MM (2022) where in person
>collaboration yielded strategy concessions, and mutual understanding
>that email was never going to produce.

Well, plumbers stands ready.  We're out of A/V rooms, but if you can do your own A/V with one of the owl cameras we can do a BoF session that can be open to remote participants as well.  I'll be happy to do the setup.

Regards,

James

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.