RE: Addressing architectural differences between FUSE driver and fs - Re: virtio-fs tests between host(x86) and dpu(arm64)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

I just want to make sure we don't miss the following point:
For IOCTL commands, the device MUST be aware of the actual architecture of the driver/kernel because the device is required to interpret some of the incoming data.

Best Regards,

-- Idan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lege Wang <lege.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2024 6:09
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>; Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter-Jan Gootzen <pgootzen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Idan Zach <izach@xxxxxxxxxx>; Yoray Zack <yorayz@xxxxxxxxxx>; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bin Yang <bin.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx>; mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx; Eliav Bar-Ilan <eliavb@xxxxxxxxxx>; mst@xxxxxxxxxx; Oren Duer <oren@xxxxxxxxxx>; Angus Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Addressing architectural differences between FUSE driver and fs - Re: virtio-fs tests between host(x86) and dpu(arm64)

External email: Use caution opening links or attachments


Hello,

>
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 11:06:19AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 10:53, Peter-Jan Gootzen <pgootzen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We also considered this idea, it would kind of be like locking 
> > > FUSE into being x86. However I think this is not backwards 
> > > compatible. Currently an ARM64 client and ARM64 server work just 
> > > fine. But making such a change would break if the client has the 
> > > new driver version and the server is not updated to know that it should interpret x86 specifically.
> >
> > This would need to be negotiated, of course.
> >
> > But it's certainly simpler to just indicate the client arch in the
> > INIT request.   Let's go with that for now.
>
> In the long term it would be cleanest to choose a single canonical 
> format instead of requiring drivers and devices to implement many 
> arch-specific formats. I liked the single canonical format idea you 
> suggested.
Agree, I also think we should use canonical format for cases that client and server have different arches.

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
>
> My only concern is whether there are more commands/fields in FUSE that 
> operate in an arch-specific way (e.g. ioctl)? If there really are 
> parts that need to be arch-specific, then it might be necessary to 
> negotiate an architecture after all.
>
> Stefan
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Miklos
> >




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux