From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www62.your-server.de (www62.your-server.de [213.133.104.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188E116ABFA; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.133.104.62 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712322391; cv=none; b=iIMcXakP7ddPxaLHwN2vsugCZAWusrT84CCnsMcQJeumQu4JkODG1bp47OkGUQk/omkUwkinwsiC4J7IVxAUGGZCljtK8nYv1f9B8ER/g2pwp3/BgDcW0pLp57jSGCfq9J3o1duOnpz7MLCN9jYw+/RAZBq4TdKWgsHbH+FncMA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712322391; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YljZRN04HiQc8Wt3luG12vSGapEED3ffuFFBqFi0cl8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=lelpJZp0W3XJRzFrjGAuAjVYv2Ece8I5kwrBZW9ojfOS0XeaGB0T20kX1uiDnQwljkWL7GPHbjz9qhyk6nJKWbSFczg3wTGdkYA3kMxGE0swW0rsnQYngbucxFHtvm3XVKxYCEClMCIJVAEPlzPTx41kDh44CRhPNItQmvrkTzA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=iogearbox.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iogearbox.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iogearbox.net header.i=@iogearbox.net header.b=Kra4dFt5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.133.104.62 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=iogearbox.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iogearbox.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iogearbox.net header.i=@iogearbox.net header.b="Kra4dFt5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iogearbox.net; s=default2302; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=UBqDaTZzUF/U4d8S2p0/DyPa6gFbPu12hq+e26cZbaA=; b=Kra4dFt51r+1M3Ng+yvTwc4kPy wU9Mex2+lsP3H0WX4jKl35z8+Cy7WybyBOR7szfGSBqoaOttIByz2JV6BwWOaLiHyH5SNjaBltPsg 3OkEaZP7TDAsmCqBjbnW4YYsxMpkEY78WsssbvuWkj4+m8T7zRelZ+uzSa9OH9eXQ00ZKjymvrWIl R2Gg9hlVlOA2oE2Wg2r64OPA/uzaLWObuyP1xmVrC3pTuw7RWdQVjnfcVLp3IOjih6i3ag8DxX1kt Mf1DYRDk0ur+WyFJndxkBZ9f9m8p0TdBwqYTUyCLf2ryl9Kl/2azb3cL17SeIFhOwHXkprz+Fkhku J8H8TSxA==; Received: from sslproxy05.your-server.de ([78.46.172.2]) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rsjGu-0000R9-Qj; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:06:20 +0200 Received: from [178.197.249.22] (helo=linux.home) by sslproxy05.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rsjGu-00Fqav-0L; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:06:20 +0200 Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface To: Jason Gunthorpe , Paolo Abeni Cc: Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , John Fastabend , Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck , davem@davemloft.net, Christoph Hellwig References: <171217454226.1598374.8971335637623132496.stgit@ahduyck-xeon-server.home.arpa> <20240404132548.3229f6c8@kernel.org> <660f22c56a0a2_442282088b@john.notmuch> <20240404165000.47ce17e6@kernel.org> <678f49b06a06d4f6b5d8ee37ad1f4de804c7751d.camel@redhat.com> <20240405122646.GA166551@nvidia.com> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: <7f728d06-3a8b-945b-de0f-d0691d3c1eab@iogearbox.net> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:06:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20240405122646.GA166551@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.103.10/27236/Fri Apr 5 10:26:04 2024) On 4/5/24 2:26 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 17:11 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>> Again, I would say we look at the blast radius. That is how we should >>> be measuring any change. At this point the driver is self contained >>> into /drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/. It isn't exporting anything >>> outside that directory, and it can be switched off via Kconfig. >> >> I personally think this is the most relevant point. This is just a new >> NIC driver, completely self-encapsulated. I quickly glanced over the >> code and it looks like it's not doing anything obviously bad. It really >> looks like an usual, legit, NIC driver. > > This is completely true, and as I've said many times the kernel as a > project is substantially about supporting the HW that people actually > build. There is no reason not to merge yet another basic netdev > driver. > > However, there is also a pretty strong red line in Linux where people > belive, with strong conviction, that kernel code should not be merged > only to support a propriety userspace. This submission is clearly > bluring that line. This driver will only run in Meta's proprietary > kernel fork on servers running Meta's propriety userspace. > > At this point perhaps it is OK, a basic NIC driver is not really an > issue, but Jiri is also very correct to point out that this is heading > in a very concerning direction. > > Alex already indicated new features are coming, changes to the core > code will be proposed. How should those be evaluated? Hypothetically > should fbnic be allowed to be the first implementation of something > invasive like Mina's DMABUF work? My $0.02 from only reading this thread on the side.. when it comes to extending and integrating with core networking code (e.g. larger features like offloads, xdp/af_xdp, etc) the networking community always requested at least two driver implementations to show-case that the code extensions touching core code are not unique to just a single driver/NIC/vendor. I'd expect this holds true also here..