Re: [RFC 0/2] fuse: introduce fuse server recovery mechanism

[Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2024/5/28 11:08, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/28/24 10:45 AM, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/24 11:16 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 08:40, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. I don't know if a kernel based recovery mechanism is welcome on the
>>>> community side.  Any comment is welcome.  Thanks!
>>>
>>> I'd prefer something external to fuse.
>>
>> Okay, understood.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a kernel based fdstore (lifetime connected to that of the
>>> container) would a useful service more generally?
>>
>> Yeah I indeed had considered this, but I'm afraid VFS guys would be
>> concerned about why we do this on kernel side rather than in user space.

Just from my own perspective, even if it's in FUSE, the concern is
almost the same.

I wonder if on-demand cachefiles can keep fds too in the future
(thus e.g. daemonless feature could even be implemented entirely
with kernel fdstore) but it still has the same concern or it's
a source of duplication.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

>>
>> I'm not sure what the VFS guys think about this and if the kernel side
>> shall care about this.
>>
> 
> There was an RFC for kernel-side fdstore [1], though it's also
> implemented upon FUSE.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+a=Yy5rnqLqH2iR-ZY6AUkNJy48mroVV3Exmhmt-pfTi82kXA@mail.gmail.com/T/
> 
> 
>