linux-kernel - Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 23:11:10 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To:	"Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	"Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
	"James Bottomley" <james.bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	"Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@...r.kernel.org,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

On 5/17/07, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:43:06PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >No, it does matter.  Your suggestion doesn't work, because
> > >/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/ belongs to the module code.  To create
> > >a new attribute there, you use the module_param() code -- and there's
> > >no way to have code called when your parameter is changed.
>
> (thanks, Roland for pointing out that I'm incorrect about code being
> called)

> Come up with a sensible suggestion, and I'll listen to you.  Code isn't
> the issue.  API is the issue.

Well, that itself is a suggestion.

> > Ok, thanks for pointing out that /sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/wait...
> > is _wrong_. Could you suggest something that would be _right_?
>
> No, I can't, which is why I find it hard to like the idea of "use
> sysfs".  I have no particular love for using a module like this, but
> my preferred way (a new verb for /proc/scsi/scsi) isn't liked by others.

Another command to /proc/scsi/scsi isn't a bad thought at all, considering
we're not _inventing_ a *new* /proc/not-related-to-processes interface, but
simply extending one that already exists. But then James / others are also
somewhat justified in shooting that down. I bet a lot of people would find
that even worse than this whole module affair.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/