linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] FUSE: implement ioctl support

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: <48BEA1D8.9040208@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:40:24 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, serue@...ibm.com,
	greg@...ah.com, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] FUSE: implement ioctl support

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I really think that if an ioctl is passing through the kernel we
> should know how to parse and understand it's options.  Otherwise
> we won't have the option of doing backwards compatibility when something
> changes, like we can with the 32->64bit ioctls.

There's no reason 32->64bit can't be handled in userland?  What's the
difference?

> That seems to imply that you need a stub in the kernel to handle 
> really weird ioctls.
> 
> The upside is that because you know what the inputs and outputs are
> and where the inputs and output are you can support that ioctl well
> into the future, and you can do it with an unprivileged file
> system server.

Well, kernel stub kind of beats a lot of benefits of FUSE - no
specific kernel dependencies, easy development and distribution,
etc...

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/