Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:50:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:50:54 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:52941 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:50:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:54:34 -0500 From: Oliver Xymoron To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dax Kelson , Alan Cox , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Will NFSv4 be accepted? Message-ID: <20020816145434.GD5418@waste.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1231 Lines: 25 On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:35:40AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I personally doubt that NFS would be the thing driving this. Judging by > past performance, NFS security issues don't seem to bother people. I'd > personally assume that the thing that would be important enough to people > for vendors to add it is VPN or encrypted (local) disks. I would have thought that there'd be a big push for merging IPSEC in as it creates one of those "network effects" but it's still stalled by politics. I think they're waiting for a written invitation or something. Is loopback solid enough currently to make crypto over loopback worthwhile? It's occurred to me that it might be better to move the translation hooks down to the generic block layer proper so that things like LVM and iSCSI and brain-damaged bit-swapped IDE could take advantage of them without the deadlock-prone layering issues of loopback. Thoughts? -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - 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/