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: <CAJfpegsyyFPUDmoi3T8vkS7+jpgfOqeUZBdKW8=Y7R8-b7ch2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 09:45:00 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
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 Tue, 28 May 2024 at 04:45, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that is indeed something that needs to be discussed.

I often find, that when discussing something like this a lot of good
ideas can come from different directions, so it can help move things
forward.

Try something really simple first, and post a patch.  Don't overthink
the first version.

Thanks,
Miklos