On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:06:22 -0400 Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 11:49 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Because it's less code that we have to maintain. rpc_pipefs certainly works > > (and works fairly well), but we have so many upcall mechanisms in the > > kernel already. keyctl also has some nice features (automated cache > > timeouts, granular security, etc), and was designed with this sort of use > > in mind. > > > > I'm not saying that we absolutely need to scrap rpc_pipefs, but considering > > alternatives may mean less work for us all in the long run. > > Talk about scrapping rpc_pipefs is premature, to say the least: I have > yet to see a plan for replacing the idmapd upcall. I have yet to see > working code that replaces the gss upcall and that works correctly in a > non-blocking environment. > That was probably too strongly worded. We wouldn't be scrapping rpc_pipefs for a long time even if we did add new upcall schemes. That said: I know that David H. recently added async versions of request_key: request_key_async() ...and... request_key_async_with_auxdata() ...assuming they work the way I think they do, they should be OK for the non-blocking case. There's also no reason we couldn't use keys for idmap upcalls as well. I'm considering them for a similar idmap scheme for CIFS. Of course all of this is handwavy and speculative. I have no working code. I was just asking whether anyone had considered this API for this purpose. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
