linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

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]

Message-ID: <20080418115237.GA25089@shareable.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:52:38 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@...s-3g.org>
Cc:	Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> If you have the free hot caches then it performs the same as in-kernel 
> file systems, user space isn't involved at all.

Presumably if "user space isn't involved at all", it must require that
user space has granted caching rights to the kernel over a FUSE
cache coherency protocol?

Otherwise I don't see how the kernel could coherently cache file pages
for some kinds of FUSE filesystems.  (E.g. sshfs, for example: every
operation must surely invoke a user space request or involve granting
a caching right to the kernel, to keep accesses coherent with other
users of the same remote files).

Ergo, either its not coherent, or there is some coherency protocol,
which does require _some_ work in the user space implementation.

-- Jamie
--
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/