On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 06:01:10PM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > So - nothing inherent to libfuse and nothing that would be relevant as > > of today. > > > > But then, let me put it like this: what reason could we have to *not* go > > with xglfs in 4.0? It's true that the deliverables are present in libfuse > > and > > libgfapi and it's just a thin glue. As such it seems to be almost devoid > > of design concerns, it just bridges the two interfaces in a > > straightforward manner. Superficially it seems to be a superior approach > > - what snag holds us back to embrace it wholeheartedly? > > What about https://review.gluster.org/#/c/3341/ and its antecedents? > Libfuse used to be unable to deal with SELinux's behavior of trying to > issue a getxattr from within the mount call. Have either libfuse or > SELinux fixed that? There might be other local changes that we'd need > to verify in similar fashion. The FUSE kernel module reverted patches that made it support SELinux. Currently no FUSE filesystem can support SELinux :-( There has been some work done through https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1272868 , but we need to spend more time on it to get the kernel work functional. IIRC it needs some changes in the SELinux part, VFS-hooks and FUSE. Once that is in place, we can see how it works together with the selinux-policy, our fuse implementation and libfuse. Niels _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
