linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: Re: [Scst-devel] linuxcon 2010...

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:	Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:30:40 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc:	scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Scst-devel] linuxcon 2010...

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:20 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Hello James,
> 
> Could you comment rumors that decision about future Linux SCSI target 
> subsystem is done as well as other related rumors:

If this is related to LSF, the notes on the I/O track are here:

http://lwn.net/Articles/400491/

> 1. What don't you like in the transition path for users from STGT to 
> SCST, which I proposed:
> 
>   - The only people which would be affected by replacing of STGT by SCST
> would be users of ibmvstgt. Other STGT users would not notice it at all. 
> Thus, we should update ibmvstgt for SCST. If ibmvstgt updated for SCST, 
> the update for its users would be just writing of a simple scstadmin's 
> config file.
> 
>   - STGT doesn't have backend drivers, which SCST doesn't have, so
> there's nothing to worry here. At max, AIO support should be added to 
> fileio_tgt.
> 
>   - STGT user space targets can use SCST backend via scst_local module.
> Scst_local module is ready and work very well.
> 
> The result would be very clear without any obsolete mess.

So does that get us up to being a drop in replacement?  I think you're
saying that even with all of this, at least the VSCSI part will need
updating, so the answer seems to be "no".

> 2. Don't you like something in the sysfs interface SCST has?

I don't think so ... from a cursory glance it looks functional.

> 3. I have heard you said "Vlad wasn't comfortable in handing up the 
> control to the maintainers ... (this is how kernel.org works)." I have 
> no idea what you meant. I have never been asked about anything like 
> that, so I couldn't say anyhow that I'm not comfortable with anything. 
> Could you clarify that?
> 
> 4. Have you changed your opinion that a driver level multipath is 
> forbidden in Linux and now you think that an iSCSI target with MC/S 
> support is acceptable?

no; I still think MCS is a pointless duplication of multipath that only
works for iSCSI.

James


--
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/