lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM
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?

Thanks.

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-06 01:21    [W:0.251 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site