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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <6a3c3035-b4c4-41d9-a7b0-65f72f479571@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:08:19 +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 5/28/24 10:45 AM, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

There was an RFC for kernel-side fdstore [1], though it's also
implemented upon FUSE.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+a=Yy5rnqLqH2iR-ZY6AUkNJy48mroVV3Exmhmt-pfTi82kXA@mail.gmail.com/T/



-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo