Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/19] fuse: fuse-over-io-uring

[Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>]

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?

Thanks,
Bernd