[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c2ab429-eab6-1dbe-08d4-9646f736a4c1@metux.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:27:18 +0200
From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: srvfs: file system for posting open file descriptors into fs
namespace
On 07.08.20 18:23, Al Viro wrote:
Hi,
>> This is a concept from Plan9. The main purpose is allowing applications
>> "dialing" some connection, do initial handshakes (eg. authentication)
>> and then publish the connection to other applications, that now can now
>> make use of the already dialed connection.
>
> Yeah, but... Linux open() always gets a new struct file instance;
I know :(
> how
> do you work around that? Some variant of ->atomic_open() API change?
> Details, please.
Proxy struct file. Yes, this adds lots of bloat :(
https://github.com/metux/linux-srvfs-oot/blob/master/kernel/proxy.c
I thought about some possible ugly tricks of copying over one into
another, but that could easily end up in a desaster.
Another idea would be adding a new fs-op that returns it's own struct
file - basically kinda per-fs open() syscall - which is called instead
of .open, if defined.
But for now, I tried to implement it as oot-module (and submit for
mainline later), so it could also be used on existing distro kernels.
Maybe that's not the best idea at all :o
What'd be your suggestion ?
--mtx
--
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists