linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: Add support for fuse stacked I/O

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:43:37 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Nikolaus Rath <nikolaus@...h.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, sven.utcke@....de,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Antonio SJ Musumeci <trapexit@...wn.link>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: Add support for fuse stacked I/O

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> FUSE allows users to implement extensions to filesystems ..such as enforcing policy or permissions without having to modify the kernel or maintain the policy in the kernel.
>
> One such example is what was quoted by Antonio above ..
> Another example is a fuse based filesystem that tries to enforce additional permissions on a FAT based mount point.
>
> From what i could google there are many FUSE based filesystems out there that do things during the open call but simply pass through the read/and write I/O calls to the local "lower" filesystem where they actually store the data.

So I think these are valid use-cases, and I just think that they should

 (a) be documented in the commit message as explanations of why people
would do this/

 (b) not be called "stacked", because that tends to have some other
connotations to fs people.

I don't know what a better term would be, but you yourself used "pass
through". Maybe that (perhaps together with a clarification that it's
a per-file thing) might work fine.

Btw, why is mmap not passed through? That sounds fairly simple and
straightforward, I'm not seeing why it would be missing.

                 Linus