Am 19.11.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Colin Walters: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 02:53 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> Erm, I don't want this in the kernel. That's why I've proposed the lklfuse approach. > > I already said this before but just to repeat, since I'm confused: > > How would "lklfuse" be different from http://libguestfs.org/ > which we at Red Hat (and a number of other organizations) > use quite widely now for build systems, debugging etc. Currently libguestfs has a rather huge overhead because it boots a full virtual machine and hence a lot of communication is needed. With LKL you can use Linux as Library and link it to fuse. AFAIK Richard added already a LKL backend to libguestfs. :-) > In the end it's just running the kernel in KVM with a custom protocol, > with support for non-filesystem things like "install a bootloader", > and it already supports FUSE. > > I'm pretty firmly with Al here - the attack surface increase here > is too great, and we'd likely turn this off if it even did make it > into the kernel. Agreed. This is why I'm promoting the fuse solution. Thanks, //richard -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
