On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:31:08 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V > <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:47:42 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V > >> <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:21:05 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Harsh Prateek Bora > >> >> <ha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> >> > This patch provides support for st_gen for handle based fs type > >> >> > server. > >> >> > Currently the support is provided for ext4, btrfs, reiserfs and xfs. > >> >> > > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <ha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> >> > --- > >> >> > hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-handle.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> >> > 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> Does handle-based file I/O really need to duplicate all this code? Is > >> >> it possible to use either regular open or handle-based open from a > >> >> single local fs codebase? > >> > > >> > The only details common between handle based and local based getversion > >> > callback is the ioctl. Moving that into a helper may not really help in > >> > this case ?. > >> > >> Aneesh, do you have a public virtfs tree that I can look at? In > >> qemu.git we don't have virtio-9p-handle.c yet, so I can't give any > >> specific feedback. > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/v9fs.git for-upstream > > > > I should send the patchset to qemu list soon. Was waiting for the > > co-routine patches to go upstream. > > The handle code looks like a copy of the local backend minus security > models. It just needs to use handle syscalls instead of using paths. > > If you treat the path as the "handle" and use regular openat(2), then > the handle code could do what the local backend does today. Except > compared to the local backend it would not have security models and be > a bit slower due to extra syscalls. > > Is the plan to add security models to the handle backend? If so, then > handle and local will be equivalent and duplicate code. >
handle require root user privileges to run. So security model with handle fs driver doesn't make sense. We added mapped security model to avoid requiring user to run as root. -aneesh
