linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fuse: Add backing file support for uring

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cda3cf68-6ed1-4e06-b29a-ce5aee34ec20@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:33:08 -0600
From: Moinak Bhattacharyya <moinakb001@...il.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Bernd Schubert <bernd@...ernd.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fuse: Add backing file support for uring_cmd


> Without CONFIG_FUSE_PASSTHROUGH, fuse/passthrough.c
> is compiled out, so the check cannot be moved into fuse_backing_*
> we'd need inline helpers that return -EOPNOTSUPP when
> CONFIG_FUSE_PASSTHROUGH is not defined.
> I don't mind, but I am not sure this is justified (yet).
Sent out a review for this. IMO even without multiple use sites, the 
static inline helper method seems cleaner to me. I'm ok if we don't want 
it, but I really do think it would make our lives easier.