Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:10:32 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: HSM (was Re: [malware-list] TALPA - a threat model? well sorta.) |
| |
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:14:16 +0200 Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Mon 2008-08-18 12:43:39, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:33:13 +0100 > > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > I could probably buy that, but I don't know how an HSM would > > > > work. Would we have everything we need at open for them to fire > > > > off? > > > > > > > > /me is HSM clueless and trying to include their needs is > > > > proving a challenge. > > > > > > So don't bother. Its a theoretical use for the most part so we can > > > mangle the interface later. > > > > Think of a consumer HSM application: backup to rsync.net > > or Amazon S3. > > > > Instead of waiting for the whole backup to be restored, > > you can start using the filesystem immediately. The > > block-on-open hook can be used by the restore program > > to fetch files from the remote backup site on an > > as-needed basis, with a full restore going on in the > > background. > > > > If the block-on-open hook can be used for that (even > > with additional magic, like creating empty HSM inodes > > with a special attr to notify "the data lives elsewhere"), > > HSM should be good. > > > > The "data lives elsewhere" bit/xattr/whatever could also > > be used on directories, so not even the whole directory > > tree would have to be restored right on restore :) > > But is this really needed to be cross-filesystem thing? I'd expect > this to be implemented with FUSE, maybe FUSE+unionfs...
If you think FUSE+unionfs is a cleaner solution than one hook in the VFS, I've got a bridge to sell you.
-- All rights reversed.
| |