netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] bnxt: Create an auxiliary device for fwctl

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: <20250207135111.6e4e10b9@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 13:51:11 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Cc: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>, Jason Gunthorpe
 <jgg@...dia.com>, Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>, Dan Williams
 <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Dave
 Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Andy
 Gospodarek <gospo@...adcom.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Jonathan
 Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Nelson, Shannon"
 <shannon.nelson@....com>, Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] bnxt: Create an auxiliary device for
 fwctl_bnxt

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:25:28 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> >nVidia is already refusing to add basic minoring features to their
> >upstream driver, and keeps asking its customers to migrate to libdoca.  
>
> nVidia is one of the top contributers to netdev,

That's inaccurate. I can't think of a single meaningful contribution
from nVidia's NIC team outside of your own driver in the last 2 years.

> we submit patches on weekly bases and due to netdev mailing list
> review backlog and policy we barely make quota,

Luckily we have development statistics so we don't have to argue:

Top reviewers (cs):                  Top reviewers (msg):                
   1 ( +1) [27] Meta                    1 ( +1) [68] Meta                
   2 ( -1) [25] RedHat                  2 ( -1) [57] RedHat              
   3 ( +1) [19] Intel                   3 ( +2) [49] Intel               
   4 ( -1) [15] Andrew Lunn             4 (   ) [43] Andrew Lunn         
   5 (   ) [12] Google                  5 ( -2) [32] Google              
   6 ( +2) [ 5] Linaro                  6 ( +3) [13] NXP                 
   7 ( +3) [ 4] Oracle                  7 ( +5) [13] Oracle              

Top authors (cs):                    Top authors (msg):                  
   1 (   ) [9] RedHat                   1 (   ) [48] Intel               
   2 ( +2) [8] Google                   2 (   ) [42] RedHat              
   3 ( -1) [7] Intel                    3 ( +1) [39] Meta                
   4 ( -1) [7] Meta                     4 ( -1) [31] Huawei              
   5 ( +2) [5] nVidia                   5 (   ) [31] nVidia              
   6 ( +7) [3] Oracle                   6 (+11) [28] Oracle              
   7 ( +9) [2] Linaro                   7 (+15) [23] Pengutronix         
        
Top scores (positive):               Top scores (negative):              
   1 ( +1) [329] Meta                   1 (   ) [92] Huawei              
   2 ( +1) [265] Andrew Lunn            2 ( +1) [76] OpenVPN             
   3 ( -2) [238] RedHat                 3 (***) [54] Pengutronix         
   4 ( +3) [125] Intel                  4 ( +2) [53] Marvell             
   5 ( -1) [116] Google                 5 ( +5) [50] Dent                
   6 ( -1) [ 70] Linaro                 6 (***) [45] nVidia              
   7 ( -1) [ 39] Broadcom               7 (+12) [43] AMD            

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250121200710.19126f7d@kernel.org/

nVidia has a negative review vs authorship score. It'd probably 
be much worse if it wasn't for the work of the switch team.

> so please elaborate on what features we are refusing to do ??

nVidia likes to send these threads to my management so I need 
to be careful. An issue was discovered during new platform evaluation.
That's all I'm gonna say.

> As explained above, netdev doesn't need it, but netdev subsystem also
> hosts the pci base drivers, so you are going to see fwctl patches the
> same as you see rdma and other non netdev patches flowing through
> netdev ML.

Sure, but we're deadlocked here. It may be a slight inconvenience to
redo the interface so that its not a standalone aux bus driver. But if
you agree the netdev doesn't need it seems like a fairly straightforward
way to unblock your progress.

I am glad that you at least agree now that nedev doesn't need it.