linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations

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: <E1L0dUS-00074L-Uz@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:48:12 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	tj@...nel.org
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
> poll/select/epoll can poll on massive number of files.  I don't think
> it's wise to have that many outstanding requests.  FUSE currently uses
> linear list to match replies to requests and libfuse will consume one
> thread per each poll if implemented like other requests.  It can be made
> asynchronous from libfuse tho.
> 
> I kind of like the original implementation tho.  The f_ops->poll
> interface is designed to be used like ->poll returning events if
> available immediately and queue for later notification as necessary.
> Notification is asynchronous and can be spurious (this actually comes
> pretty handy for low level implementation).  When notified, upper layer
> queries the same way using ->poll.  This is quite convenient for low
> level implementation as the actual logic of poll can live in ->poll
> proper while notifications can be scattered around places where events
> can occur.

Yes, that kind of interface is nice for f_ops->poll, and for libfuse.

But for the kernel interface it's inefficient.  A wake up event is 3
context switches instead of one.  And that's inherent in the interface
itself for no good reason.

Also there's again the question of userspace filesystem messing with
the caller: your original implementation allows the userspace
filesystem to block f_ops->poll() forever, which really isn't what
poll/select is about.

So I'd still argue for the simple POLL-request/POLL-notify protocol on
the kernel API, and possibly have the async notification similar to
the kernel interface on the library API.

Implementation wise I don't care all that much, but I'd actually
prefer if it was implemented using the traditional request/reply thing
and optimized (possibly later) to find requests in a more efficient
way than searching the linear list, which would benefit not just poll
but all requests.

Miklos
--
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/