linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host

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: <566DC3F0.6050206@suse.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:16:00 -0800
From:	Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>
To:	emilne@...hat.com
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] SCSI: hosts: update to use ida_simple for host_no
 management

On 12/11/2015 07:31 AM, Ewan Milne wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 -0800, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> On 11/17/2015 03:20 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Lee" == Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Lee> Martin: I will be glad to update the patch, creating a modprobe
>>> Lee> parameter as suggested, if you find this acceptable.
>>>
>>> For development use a module parameter would be fine. But I am concerned
>>> about our support folks that rely on the incrementing host number when
>>> analyzing customer log files.
>>>
>>> Ewan: How do you folks feel about this change?
>>>
>>
>> Ewan?
> 
> 
> Personally, I think having host numbers that increase essentially
> without limit (I think I've seen this with iSCSI sessions) are a
> problem, the numbers start to lose meaning for people when they
> are not easily recognizable.  Yes, it can help when you're analyzing
> a log file, but it seems to me that you would want to track the
> host state throughout anyway, so you could just follow the number
> as it changes.
> 
> If we change the behavior, we have to change documentation, and
> our support people will get calls.  But that's not a reason not
> to do it.
> 
> -Ewan
> 

Ewan:

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, which is why I generated
this patch.

If we *do* make this change, do you think it would be useful to have a
module option to revert to the old numbering behavior? I actually think
it would be more confusing to support two behaviors than it would be to
bite the bullet (so to speak) and make the change.

-- 
Lee Duncan
--
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/