From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 2/4] fuse4fs: run servers as a contained service
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:54:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260923045445.GY6283@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arL6faQ3Nq8MJHvg@mit.edu>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 08:46:50PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:41:59PM -0500, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > libext2fs: fix MMP code to work with unixfd IO manager
>
> So a quick comment about this:
>
> * It's also broken if the unixfd IO manager was passed a string with a
> * file descriptor number instead of a /dev/fd/XX path, but the
> * internet thinks there are no users of the manager outside of Google.
>
> Specifically, it's not Google, it's "Android", and it's used for a
> similar reason as unprivileged containerized use case --- namely
> security. In the case of Android, a volume server daemon passes the
> file descriptor over a unix domain socket so that the fsck can be run
> on the file system without giving it wider access to the system. The
> difference is that Android didn't care about MMP, so they never tested
> or cared about that particular corner case.
>
> Honestly, MMP only really makes sense when you have specialized
> hardware where the storage device can be simultaneously connected to
> two host servers, and you want to do block device level failover
> between devices. This doesn't really make sense for Android or for
> the containerized fuse service, so _not_ supporting it for FUSE (or
> Android) is a perfectly valid choice.
>
> Even in the software defined block device world for Cloud VM's, you
> generally don't need it because this can be handled at the control
> plane level. For example, Google Cloud's Persistent Disk has an I/O
> fencing feature where if one of the VM loses network connectivity, you
> can do a forced failover where the backup VM can "take over" the cloud
> disk, and the previous VM that had exclusive writer access will have
> its access cut off before the secondary VM gains exclusive write
> access to the disk. If you have this, you don't need MMP.
<shrug> So what should we do? I'd be fine with dropping the patch and
simply not supporting MMP in containerized fuse*fs. It's a rather niche
feature anyway.
--D
> Cheers,
>
> - Ted
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-23 4:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-12 6:41 [GIT PULL 2/4] fuse4fs: run servers as a contained service Darrick J. Wong
2026-09-23 0:46 ` Theodore Tso
2026-09-23 4:54 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260923045445.GY6283@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox