linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] fuse: introduce fuse server recovery mechanism

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <858d23ec-ea81-45cb-9629-ace5d6c2f6d9@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:45:25 +0800
From: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 winters.zc@...group.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] fuse: introduce fuse server recovery mechanism



On 5/27/24 11:16 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 08:40, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> 3. I don't know if a kernel based recovery mechanism is welcome on the
>> community side.  Any comment is welcome.  Thanks!
> 
> I'd prefer something external to fuse.

Okay, understood.

> 
> Maybe a kernel based fdstore (lifetime connected to that of the
> container) would a useful service more generally?

Yeah I indeed had considered this, but I'm afraid VFS guys would be
concerned about why we do this on kernel side rather than in user space.

I'm not sure what the VFS guys think about this and if the kernel side
shall care about this.

Many thanks!


-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo