| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3bc8237c0808301539v7b131b5fw4fa7a820170c3eae@mail.gmail.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists