linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 6.4+ merge window

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2740c0e76e3feffbd43956d342c1805082396c99.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Sun, 03 Sep 2023 08:41:41 +0100
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 6.4+ merge window

On Sat, 2023-09-02 at 12:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 00:39, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Updates to the usual drivers (ufs, lpfc, qla2xxx, mpi3mr, libsas)
> > and the usual minor updates and bug fixes but no significant core
> > changes.
> 
> Removing 3000+ lines for UFS HPB support wasn't even worth
> mentioning?

Sorry, my bias is showing.  I always thought HPB was a useless
marketing feature and was against including it, so removing it is just
the world going back to being more correct.  To be honest, I also
didn't think you cared at all about UFS ...

> I am happy to see it gone, and maybe as a technology it was a failure
> not worth it, but as a "we gave up on it as being worthless" might
> still have been worth a word or two..
> 
> Sadly, I see from the commit message that apparently the next stage
> is going to involve zoned storage. Now *there* is a technology that
> seems to be a complete failure, brought to us by the same kind of
> failed hardware people who tried to convince us that we should care
> about 64kB pages in SSD's.

Well, we put HPB in in spite of most of us thinking it was a bad idea
because there was a tiny chance it might work and it could be yanked
out if it didn't.  There's no reason not to extend the same courtesy to
zoned storage.

> Oh well. With enough thrust, even a pig will fly. I suspect that's
> the motivating factor behind all those zoned storage things too.

That's why RFC1925 exists, yes ...

James