linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: allow FUSE drivers to declare themselves free from outside changes

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: <fbd0b9e5fb765eaea98fef23e9e36f266d7926ea.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 10:51:45 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: allow FUSE drivers to declare themselves free
 from outside changes

On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 16:38 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 16:02, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 4:29 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 15:23 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> 
> > > > Could you please add something like below?
> > > > 
> > > > FUSE_NO_OUTSIDE_CHANGES: No file changes through other mounts / clients
> > > > 
> 
> "through other mounts" is confusing, since one instance of the fuse
> filesystem can have many mounts, and changes can be done through all
> of them.   The issue is if changes are spontaneous from the viewpoint
> of the fuse client.
> 

I'm fine with whatever verbiage you prefer. Let me know if you need me
to resend.

> > > 
> > > Definitely. I've added that in my local branch. I can either resend
> > > later, or maybe Miklos can just add that if he's otherwise OK with this
> > > patch.
> > 
> > Don't love the name but don't have any suggestions either.
> > 
> > I am wondering out loud, if we have such a mode for the fs,
> > if and how should it affect caching configuration?

Another thing to consider: what about fsnotify? Should notifications be
allowed when this flag isn't set?

> 
> IMO it should enable all caching and override any conflicting options.
> That's a separate patch, but should be done within the next cycle.
> I'll look into that.
> 

Thanks!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>