[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtjmkJUSqORFv6jw-sYbqEMh9vJz64+dmzWhATYiBmzVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:11:11 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dray@...hat.com,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
andres@...razel.de, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:17 PM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> Fwiw, putting down my kernel hat and speaking as someone who maintains
> two container runtimes and various other low-level bits and pieces in
> userspace who'd make heavy use of this stuff I would prefer the fd-based
> fsinfo() approach especially in the light of across namespace
> operations, querying all properties of a mount atomically all-at-once,
fsinfo(2) doesn't meet the atomically all-at-once requirement. Sure,
it's possible to check the various change counters before and after a
batch of calls to check that the result is consistent. Still, that's
not an atomic all-at-once query, if you'd really require that, than
fsinfo(2) as it currently stands would be inadequate.
> and safe delegation through fds. Another heavy user of this would be
> systemd (Cced Lennart who I've discussed this with) which would prefer
> the fd-based approach as well. I think pulling this into a filesystem
> and making userspace parse around in a filesystem tree to query mount
> information is the wrong approach and will get messy pretty quickly
> especially in the face of mount and user namespace interactions and
> various other pitfalls.
Have you actually looked at my proposed patch? Do you have concrete
issues or just vague bad feelings?
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists