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]

Message-ID: <4C6C1DC1.8090208@vlnb.net>
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:52:01 +0400
From:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
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...

James Bottomley, on 08/18/2010 12:30 AM wrote:
>> 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".

Sorry, I can't understand, "no" for which? For the whole transition 
path, or just until there is a patch for ibmvstgt to become ibmvscst?

>> 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.

Then, does it mean that similarly as it was with open-iscsi, which had 
to remove MC/S support to be able to be accepted into the mainline, an 
iSCSI target can't go into mainline if it has MC/S?

Thanks for answers,
Vlad
--
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/