linux-kernel - Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCHSET] CUSE: implement CUSE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:39:29 -0500
From:	"Archie Cobbs" <archie@...lroad.org>
To:	"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Mike Hommey" <mh@...ndium.org>, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miklos@...redi.hu
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCHSET] CUSE: implement CUSE

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Yeah, compared to loopback over FUSE, anything would have less
> problem. :-) I don't know much about nbd but it's pretty much solving
> the same problem so I think it's logical to extend nbd including
> giving it a new transport if necessary?  Or is there something
> fundamentally better when it's done via FUSE?

Well, NBD is the bird in hand, but that doesn't mean it's the best way
to do things generically for all block device emulation applications.

I'd even argue that NBD should be removed from the kernel and replaced
by BUSE plus a user-land daemon. A BUSE interface could be a lot more
general, and simpler.

Not to mention that converting all block reads and writes to TCP
operations that talk to another process on the same machine via the
loopback interface seems awfully inefficient.

-Archie

--
Archie L. Cobbs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/