From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] InfiniBand Transport (IBTRS) and Network Block Device (IBNBD) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:36:22 +0200 Message-ID: <40a7fc35-f86c-1d9d-f057-e5822708fc32@grimberg.me> References: <20180202140904.2017-1-roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com> <1517591106.2675.28.camel@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jinpu Wang , Bart Van Assche Cc: "roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "danil.kipnis@profitbricks.com" , "hch@infradead.org" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > Hi Bart, > > My another 2 cents:) > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 15:08 +0100, Roman Pen wrote: >>> o Simple configuration of IBNBD: >>> - Server side is completely passive: volumes do not need to be >>> explicitly exported. >> >> That sounds like a security hole? I think the ability to configure whether or >> not an initiator is allowed to log in is essential and also which volumes an >> initiator has access to. > Our design target for well controlled production environment, so > security is handle in other layer. What will happen to a new adopter of the code you are contributing?