Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 09:23:29 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@oracle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@nvidia.com>,
        Itay Avraham <itayavr@nvidia.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver
Message-ID: <20231207092329.3ec04dca@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <kakenvblxlgrkjvcrwfflnkm6n5fpxgr4qifwkdttjascth3te@57us7mblobjz>
References: <20231128162413.GP436702@nvidia.com>
        <20231128084421.6321b9b2@kernel.org>
        <20231128175224.GR436702@nvidia.com>
        <20231128103304.25c2c642@kernel.org>
        <ZWZJGF7moDM_k6TU@x130>
        <2023112922-lyricist-unclip-8e78@gregkh>
        <oxtcvxwbj2hzv4lxnxubo3hoxn7diyzhm2oj3tsw2toxbc3og4@ddglhm6r3oa5>
        <20231204185210.030a72ca@kernel.org>
        <fgalnohzpiox7rvsf3wsurkf2x3rdtyhwqq5tk43gesvjlw6yl@i7colkh2sx5h>
        <20231205204855.52fa5cc1@kernel.org>
        <kakenvblxlgrkjvcrwfflnkm6n5fpxgr4qifwkdttjascth3te@57us7mblobjz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:41:25 -0600 Aron Silverton wrote:
> > I understand that having everything packaged and shipped together makes
> > life easier.  
> 
> I think it is a requirement. We operate with Secure Boot. The kernel is
> locked down. We don't have debugfs access, even if it were sufficient,
> and we cannot compile and load modules. Even without Secure Boot, there
> may not be a build environment available.

This 'no debugfs' requirement is a kernel lockdown thing, I presume?
Are we expected to throw debugfs out the window and for all vendors
to reimplement their debug functionality via a misc driver taking
arbitrary ioctls? Not only does that sound like a complete waste of
time and going backward in terms of quality of the interfaces, needing
custom vendor tools etc. etc., but also you go from (hopefully somewhat)
upstream reviewed debugfs interface to an interface where the only
security assurance is vendor telling you "trust me, it's all good".