On 5/30/24 18:10, Kent Overstreet wrote: > 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. Fine with me, if you have something better/simpler with less security concerns - why not. We just need a community agreement on that. Do you have something I could look at? Thanks, Bernd
