linux-kernel - Re: [Announce]: Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 work

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: <1229162907.4153.857.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:08:27 -0800
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...nel.org>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-iSCSI.org Target Dev" 
	<linux-iscsi-target-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Announce]: Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 work

On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 10:41 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:20 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:40:09 PST, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" said:
> >
> >> Too bad, because you are missing out on the most advanced ConfigFS
> >> enabled storage engine on the planet.
> >
> > OK. I *have* to ask.. ;)
> >
> > What's the *second* most advanced configfs-enabled storage engine?
> 
> Please don't let Nicholas Bellinger mislead you. The most important
> aspect of a storage engine is stability. Last January I ran
> performance tests on IET, STGT, SCST and LIO. I quickly found out not
> only that SCST had the highest throughput and the lowest latency, but
> also that the performance tests on LIO triggered several kernel
> crashes. I have reported these crashes to the linux-iscsi-target-dev
> mailing list, but even as of today, it's not yet clear whether all of
> these crashes have been fixed. During the last ten years I have filed
> bug reports for many open source projects, and the LIO project is the
> only project where the (kernel) crashes I reported were not addressed
> immediately.
> 
> See also:
> * February 1, 2008, LIO kernel panic during configuration,
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/74c8b37f24b84e59/d94c07626bd20521?lnk=gst&q=kernel+panic#d94c07626bd20521.
> * February 8, 2008, kernel crash triggered by LIO,
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/30835aede1028188/5708e16a23367fb4?lnk=gst&q=kernel+crash#5708e16a23367fb4.
> * February 13, 2008, LIO target kernel code triggers memory
> corruption, http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/ddc1bf7666372972/2150a09f9ed3d1cd?lnk=gst&q=ipoib#2150a09f9ed3d1cd.
> * February 18, 2008, LIO target makes entire system hang,
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux-iscsi-target-dev/browse_thread/thread/6a76f9efd9409fc5/55bd8840b6a5f757?lnk=gst&q=lio+target+hangs#55bd8840b6a5f757.
> 

Heh.

I have no idea why why you keep bringing up a minor BUG (completely
unrelated to Target_Core_Mod/ConfigFS and LIO-Target v3.0 btw) that was
fixed 10 months ago..?  Perhaps if you spent half the time looking at
actual lio-core-2.6.git code that you do bringing up minor closed bugs
from months ago, you and Vlad would actually understand how ConfigFS
works by now.

Best Regards,

--nab

--
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/