linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing

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:   Fri, 25 May 2018 16:30:58 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Martin George <marting@...app.com>,
        John Meneghini <John.Meneghini@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:22:17PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> But Mike's and Hannes' arguments where reasonable as well, we do not
> know if there are any existing setups we might break leading to
> support calls, which we have to deal with. Personally I don't believe
> there are lot's of existing nvme multipath setups out there, but who
> am I to judge.

I don't think existing setups are very likely, but they absolutely
are a valid reason to support the legacy mode.  That is why we support
the legacy mode using the multipath module option.  Once you move
to a per-subsystem switch you don't support legacy setups, you
create a maze of new setups that we need to keep compatibility
support for forever.

> So can we find a middle ground to this? Or we'll have the
> all-or-nothing situation we have in scsi-mq now again. How about
> tieing the switch to a config option which is off per default?

The middle ground is the module option.  It provides 100% backwards
compatibility if used, but more importantly doesn't create hairy
runtime ABIs that we will have to support forever.