On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:05:30PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 9/5/2014 3:52 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:45:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>On 9/5/2014 3:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>>Hello, Dmitry. > >>> > >>>On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:10:03AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >>>>I do not agree that it is actually user-visible change: generally speaking you > >>>>do not really know if device is there or not. They come and go. Like I said, > >>>>consider all permutations, with hot-pluggable buses, deferred probing, etc, > >>> > >>>It is for storage devices which always have guaranteed synchronous > >>>probing on module load and well-defined probing order. Sure, modern > >>>setups are a lot more dynamic but I'm quite certain that there are > >>>setups in the wild which depend on storage driver loading being > >>>synchronous. We can't simply declare one day that such behavior is > >>>broken and break, most likely, their boots. > >> > >>we even depend on this in the mount-by-label cases > >> > >>many setups assume that the internal storage prevails over the USB stick in the case of conflicts. > >>it's a security issue; you don't want the built in secure bootloader that has a kernel root argument > >>by label/uuid. > >>the security there tends to assume that built-in wins over USB > > > >Ahem... and they sure it works reliably with large storage arrays? With > >SCSI doing probing asynchronously already? > > you tend to trust your large storage array > you tend to not trust the walk up USB stick. If you allow physical access it does not matter really. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
