Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] FUSE: implement ioctl support | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:29:51 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: > I first used 'server' for userland [FC]USE server but then I noticed > there were places in FUSE they were referred as clients so now I use > 'client' for those and call the app using the FUSE fs the 'caller'. > What are the established terms?
Umm
- userspace filesystem - filesystem daemon - filesystem process - server
Yes it's also a client of the fuse device, but that term is confusing.
> Anyways, doing it directly from the server (or is it client) opens up a > lot of new possibilities to screw up and I'd really much prefer staying > in similar ballpark with other operations. Maybe we can restrict it to > two stages (query size & transfer) and linear consecutive ranges but > then again adding retry doesn't contribute too much to the complexity. > Oh.. and BTW, the in-ioctl length coding is not used universally, so it > can't be depended upon.
I know it's not universal, some horrors I've seen in the old wireless interfaces. The question is: do we want to support such "extended" ioctls? For exmaple, does OSS have non-conformant ioctls?
> >> Also, what about containers? How would it work then? > > > > Dunno. Isn't there some transformation of pids going on, so that the > > global namespace can access pids in all containers but under a > > different alias? I do hope somethinig like this works, otherwise it's > > not only fuse that will break. > > I'm not sure either. Any idea who we should be asking about it?
Serge Hallyn and Eric Biederman.
Miklos
| |