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: <kuarf6hiwmit3jwwe4r27dj46v64k7x52eitsaw27zfw7c62cc@nrzyjrs5kztk>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:52:12 -0500
From: John Groves <John@...ves.net>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
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 25/08/14 05:19PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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

I'll take a look at INIT_REPLY; if I can make sense of it, I'll try something
based on that in V3. Or I may have questions...

Thanks,
John