On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 21:37, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was waiting for LSFMM to see if and how FUSE-BPF intends to > address the highest value use case of read/write passthrough. > > From what I've seen, you are still taking a very broad approach of > all-or-nothing which still has a lot of core design issues to address, > while these old patches already address the most important use case > of read/write passthrough of fd without any of the core issues > (credentials, hidden fds). > > As far as I can tell, this old implementation is mostly independent of your > lookup based approach - they share the low level read/write passthrough > functions but not much more than that, so merging them should not be > a blocker to your efforts in the longer run. > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > As things stand, I intend to re-post these old patches with mandatory > FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH_AUTOCLOSE to eliminate the open > questions about managing mappings. > > Miklos, please stop me if I missed something and if you do not > think that these two approaches are independent. Do you mean that the BPF patches should use their own passthrough mechanism? I think it would be better if we could agree on a common interface for passthough (or per Paul's suggestion: backing) mechanism. Let's see this patchset and then we can discuss how this could be usable for the BPF case as well. Thanks, Miklos
