linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/52] [RFC] virtio-fs: shared file system for virtual machines

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: <871s4dc85b.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:26:48 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     vgoyal@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu, stefanha@...hat.com,
        dgilbert@...hat.com, sweil@...hat.com, swhiteho@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/52] [RFC] virtio-fs: shared file system for virtual machines

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Here are RFC patches for virtio-fs. Looking for feedback on this approach.
>
> These patches should apply on top of 4.20-rc5. We have also put code for
> various components here.
>
> https://gitlab.com/virtio-fs
>
> Problem Description
> ===================
> We want to be able to take a directory tree on the host and share it with
> guest[s]. Our goal is to be able to do it in a fast, consistent and secure
> manner. Our primary use case is kata containers, but it should be usable in
> other scenarios as well.
>
> Containers may rely on local file system semantics for shared volumes,
> read-write mounts that multiple containers access simultaneously.  File
> system changes must be visible to other containers with the same consistency
> expected of a local file system, including mmap MAP_SHARED.
>
> Existing Solutions
> ==================
> We looked at existing solutions and virtio-9p already provides basic shared
> file system functionality although does not offer local file system semantics,
> causing some workloads and test suites to fail.

Can you elaborate on this? Is this with 9p2000.L ? We did quiet a lot of
work to make sure posix test suite pass on 9p file system. Also 
was the mount option with cache=loose?

-aneesh