On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Jeff Darcy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Yes, this should be ported to libfuse (or come up with an alternative solution) once the missing kernel bits are in place. I think that should happen regardless of our choice of FUSE userspace implementation. Csaba _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
