Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757822AbYBDX2j (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:28:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755765AbYBDX2b (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:28:31 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58599 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755596AbYBDX2a (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:28:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:27:42 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jeff Garzik cc: Alan Cox , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , James Bottomley , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , Bart Van Assche , Andrew Morton , FUJITA Tomonori , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mike Christie Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel In-Reply-To: <47A79A10.4070706@garzik.org> Message-ID: References: <1201639331.3069.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A05CBD.5050803@vlnb.net> <47A7049A.9000105@vlnb.net> <1202139015.3096.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A73C86.3060604@vlnb.net> <1202144767.3096.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A7488B.4080000@vlnb.net> <1202145901.3096.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1202151989.11265.576.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20080204224314.113afe7b@core> <47A79A10.4070706@garzik.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1387 Lines: 32 On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > For years I have been hoping that someone will invent a simple protocol (w/ > strong auth) that can transit ATA and SCSI commands and responses. Heck, it > would be almost trivial if the kernel had a TLS/SSL implementation. Why would you want authorization? If you don't use IP (just ethernet framing), then 99% of the time the solution is to just trust the subnet. So most people would never want TLS/SSL, and the ones that *do* want it would probably also want IP routing, so you'd actually be better off with a separate higher-level bridging protocol rather than have TLS/SSL as part of the actual packet protocol. So don't add complexity. The beauty of ATA-over-ethernet is exactly that it's simple and straightforward. (Simple and straightforward is also nice for actually creating devices that are the targets of this. I just *bet* that an iSCSI target device probably needs two orders of magnitude more CPU power than a simple AoE thing that can probably be done in an FPGA with no real software at all). Whatever. We have now officially gotten totally off topic ;) Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/