On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 06:02:21PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > Hmm, initially I had thought about writing my own ring buffer, but then > io-uring got IORING_OP_URING_CMD, which seems to have exactly what we > need? From interface point of view, io-uring seems easy to use here, > has everything we need and kind of the same thing is used for ublk - > what speaks against io-uring? And what other suggestion do you have? > > I guess the same concern would also apply to ublk_drv. > > Well, decoupling from io-uring might help to get for zero-copy, as there > doesn't seem to be an agreement with Mings approaches (sorry I'm only > silently following for now). > > From our side, a customer has pointed out security concerns for io-uring. > My thinking so far was to implemented the required io-uring pieces into > an module and access it with ioctls... Which would also allow to > backport it to RHEL8/RHEL9. Well, I've been starting to sketch out a ringbuffer() syscall, which would work on any (supported) file descriptor and give you a ringbuffer for reading or writing (or call it twice for both). That seems to be what fuse really wants, no? You're already using a file descriptor and your own RPC format, you just want a faster communications channel.
