There is no more distributed storage you knew before, instead there
is completely new project being developed, which main goal is to
provide a transport layer for the block requests only. Consider it
as Network Block Device on huge steroids. Consider it as iSCSI on
huge steroids. Consider it as ATA-over-Ethernet on even more huge
steroids. It is just an example of what all those protocols should
have. And only that.
didn't get the "zero tolerance for doping" memo
If you want the kernel people to endorse your project, you'll have
to please them. Its that simple. If that means having to radically
re-structure your design, and/or break backwards compatibility then
so be it. Such are the costs for not collaborating from the start.
If you stubbornly refuse to co-operate you'll either break the
project or invite a fork/rewrite by someone else if the idea is
deemed worthwhile enough.
-- Peter Zijlstra
Being a good citizen in Linux land often means improving whole
subsystems rather than stuffing a bunch of fancy features into
individual drivers. Working that way can be harder, but it spreads
the benefits wider, and improves Linux as a whole.
FWIW, I would rather see implications thought about *and* mentioned
in the changelogs. OTOH, the above shows the real-world cases when
breakage hadn't even been realized to be security-significant.
Obviously broken behaviour (leak, for example) gets spotted and
fixed. Fix looks obviously sane, bug it deals with - obviously
real and worth fixing, so into a tree it goes... IOW, one _can't_
rely on having patches that close security holes marked as such.
For that the authors have to notice that themselves in the first
-- Al Viro
(read the whole thing)
to post comments)