linux-kernel - Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:27:42 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> For years I have been hoping that someone will invent a simple protocol (w/
> strong auth) that can transit ATA and SCSI commands and responses. Heck, it
> would be almost trivial if the kernel had a TLS/SSL implementation.

Why would you want authorization? If you don't use IP (just ethernet 
framing), then 99% of the time the solution is to just trust the subnet. 

So most people would never want TLS/SSL, and the ones that *do* want it 
would probably also want IP routing, so you'd actually be better off with 
a separate higher-level bridging protocol rather than have TLS/SSL as part 
of the actual packet protocol.

So don't add complexity. The beauty of ATA-over-ethernet is exactly that 
it's simple and straightforward.

(Simple and straightforward is also nice for actually creating devices 
that are the targets of this. I just *bet* that an iSCSI target device 
probably needs two orders of magnitude more CPU power than a simple AoE 
thing that can probably be done in an FPGA with no real software at all).

Whatever. We have now officially gotten totally off topic ;)

		Linus
--
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/