On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 06:17:29PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > > > 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? Like I said it's at the early sketch stage, I haven't written any code yet. But I'm envisioning something very simple - just a syscall that gives you a mapped buffer of a specified size with head and tail pointers. But this has been kicking around for awhile, so if you're interested I could probably have something for you to try out in the next few days.
