From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: generating a Linux WWN? Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:02:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4703BD25.2010407@garzik.org> References: <660594.90733.qm@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <47032CDA.1020303@garzik.org> <4703B62D.3020002@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:49273 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752588AbXJCQCx (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:02:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4703B62D.3020002@sgi.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Reed Cc: ltuikov@yahoo.com, James.Smart@Emulex.Com, linux-scsi Michael Reed wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Luben Tuikov wrote: >>> Do you mean: >>> "The admin will have the option to SPECIFY(SET) a WWN, should they >>> so desire." >>> OR do you mean: >>> "The admin will have the option to HAVE THE KERNEL auto-generate a WWN, >>> should they so desire." >> Both. It is up to admin policy to decide if they wish to use the >> available board's WWN (if present/valid), manually apportion WWNs, or >> whether the kernel's generation algo is fine with them. > > Could the reassignment of a board's WWN present any security issues? > A board which is allowed to access only some targets is now allowed to > access others. I would assume that most sites that care about security > would have other measures in place to guard against this, but it's still > worth pondering. Well, at that point the admin has made a conscious decision to deviate from the norm, either for site-specific reasons or for getting-his-hardware-working reasons. So we assume the admin who made a proactive step in this direction knows what he is doing. Just like the rest of Linux, we just give you the rope... :) Jeff