linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 11/18] famfs_fuse: Basic famfs mount opts

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: <CAJfpegsQxSv+x5=u1-ikR_Pk7L+h_AqNBW1XxM-b1G2TLPP4LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:19:20 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: John Groves <John@...ves.net>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, 
	Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>, John Groves <jgroves@...ron.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, 
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, 
	Stefan Hajnoczi <shajnocz@...hat.com>, Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>, 
	Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Aravind Ramesh <arramesh@...ron.com>, 
	Ajay Joshi <ajayjoshi@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 11/18] famfs_fuse: Basic famfs mount opts

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 16:39, John Groves <John@...ves.net> wrote:

> Having a generic approach rather than a '-o' option would be fine with me.
> Also happy to entertain other ideas...

We could just allow arbitrary options to be set by the server.  It
might break cases where the server just passes unknown options down
into the kernel, which currently are rejected.  I don't think this is
common practice, but still it sounds a bit risky.

Alternatively allow INIT_REPLY to set up misc options, which can only
be done explicitly, so no risk there.

Thanks,
Miklos