| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:45:13 +1100 From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans On Thursday 08 January 2009 19:39:02 Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I don't know how stable fuse APIs are (ie. whether we'd just be handing > > the anchors to FUSE), but if it is very stable, then it would be nice to > > push a lot of them out of the kernel (although OTOH the old ones tend not > > to have complex interactions with mm or block layer). > > Fuse APIs are very stable, so pushing old filesystems out to userspace > makes sense. Porting them, however, is not entirely trivial. Amit > Singh (of MacFUSE) got minix, ufs and sysvfs to work on OSX using only > lightly modified linux source code. That framework could probably be > used to port other filesystems to userspace. That might be nice. OTOH it is just a random suggestion from me. I don't know what core fs developers think about requiring fuse and user code to mount these old things... Would we have to distribute the user code with the kernel? I guess then we would still need to maintain it, but I guess the key improvement would be that fuse APIs are very stable. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists