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]

Message-ID: <a781481a0705172228j34e0b3eblade96458163475cb@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2007 10:58:05 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To:	"Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	"Benjamin LaHaise" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
	"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
Subject: Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning

On 5/18/07, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > > > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > > > using /proc/scsi/scsi in any case.
> > >
> > > How about the three users who're bothered by this extra module being
> > > built maintain a one-line patch to Kconfig and leave well enough alone?

[ BTW, this is the last time I'll try explaining this to you. ]

The one-line patch you're suggesting *would*not*allow* one to use the async
scanning _at_all_. If one really wants to use async scanning reliably (even in
the future, as it can be turned on at boot-time later, like you very well know),
that module *must* be built. Making it user-visible and/or optional would *not*
be a solution but a *problem*. What I have been suggesting is *not* to make
this *dummy module* user-visible and/or optional but to _not_ use this
*dummy module* for this purpose in the first place.

[ There. What was this ... third ... fourth time? ]

> > The module has an added bonus that it doesn't require any new tools to
> > make work.  Doing it via sysfs/procfs means a new rev of whatever tool
> > generates the boot initrd, plus fixing up boot scripts.  Loading a module
> > can be done via a simple option to the existing boot tools.
>
> That was what James and I thought.  However, the distros seem unhappy
> with it.  Of course, they won't actually *comment* on it, they just
> disable the async scan and won't talk about why.

[ This time, I don't see the subject changing, nor a "change in the general
direction of the thread blah blah blah", and still you feel compelled to not
maintain the CC list. Wow. ]
-
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/