netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

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: <6af1429e-c36a-459c-9b35-6a9f55c3b2ac@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:23:19 +0100
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.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>,
 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>,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

On 3/6/25 12:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:41:35PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> 
>> How do you imagine this driver/core structure should look like? Who
>> will be the top dir maintainer?
> 
> I would set something like this up more like DRM. Every driver
> maintainer gets commit rights, some rules about no uAPIs, or at least
> other acks before merging uAPI. Use the tree for staging shared
> branches.

why no uapi? Core driver can have knowledge of h/w resources across all
use cases. For example, our core driver supports a generid netlink based
dump (no set operations; get and dump only so maybe that should be the
restriction?) of all objects regardless of how created -- netdev, ib,
etc. -- and with much more detail.

> 
> Driver maintainers with the most commits per cycle does the PR or
> something like that.
> 
> There is no subsystem or cross-driver entanglement so there is no real
> need for gatekeeping.
> 
> It would be a good opportunity to help more people engage with the
> kernel process and learn the full maintainer flow.
> 
>> It should be something that is tightly coupled with aux, currently
>> aux is under drivers/base/auxiliary.c I think it should move to
>> drivers/aux/auxiliary.c and device drivers should implement their
>> own aux buses, WH access APIs and probing/init logic under that
>> directory e.g: drivers/aux/mlx5/..
> 
> That makes sense to me. I would expect everything in this collection
> to be PCI drivers spawing aux devices.
> 
> drivers/aux_core/ or something like that, perhaps?
> 

drivers/aux_core works for me; removes the 'pci' assumption and makes it
clear the real attribute here is use of the aux bus with subsystem
specific devices. I am still not clear on how such a branch will work -
e.g. We will want multi-vendor review, not just merge the PR and go.