From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:10:05 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal Message-ID: References: <4362261a-c762-4666-84e2-03c9daa6c4d9@www.fastmail.com> <798fe353-9537-44fe-a76a-819e8c93abb5@www.fastmail.com> <20220928083340.eyizwu6mm3cc3bxu@mhamilton> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] virtiofsd: Any reason why there's not an "openat2" sandbox mode? List-Id: Development discussions about virtio-fs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Colin Walters Cc: Sergio Lopez , Stefan Hajnoczi , virtio-fs-list , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:04:36AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 3:28 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > Sounds reasonable. In fact, we could probably do someting similar > > for "landlock" as well. > > Thanks for the discussion all! Can someone (vaguely) commit to look into this in say the next few months? It's not *urgent*, we can live with the 9p flakes and problems short term, just trying to figure out if this needs to be on our medium-term radar or not. Thanks! Hi Colin, What's your use case. How do you plan to use virtiofs. Thanks Vivek