From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]:38642 "EHLO
	mail-ig0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751073AbcAOVni (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:43:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56994884.9060002@codeaurora.org>
References: <565394BE.4040506@codeaurora.org>
	<5696E366.2080605@codeaurora.org>
	<20160114045716.GB8006@kroah.com>
	<5697EF97.9020800@codeaurora.org>
	<CA+55aFwxaU0Y_UxyKFv6WaYsPWDDzZG-rhVtMuLSPcJ0WLLw2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALCETrWNQ9ytw1bCOOjFJRstauYc6DocQAmZCF61CErAJ5BF2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB3-ZyT+xcU-0BnNvq-+GsDe6W8=MCWwxguS-+KQ39gajmM5pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<871t9i91e1.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org>
	<56994884.9060002@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:43:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw9N6Qt=5Q7z+rc_KsotiDgwizm-3Ym6Q70azkb2b3YOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: Add support for fuse stacked I/O
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Nikolaus Rath <nikolaus@rath.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, sven.utcke@gmx.de,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Antonio SJ Musumeci <trapexit@spawn.link>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> FUSE allows users to implement extensions to filesystems ..such as enforcing policy or permissions without having to modify the kernel or maintain the policy in the kernel.
>
> One such example is what was quoted by Antonio above ..
> Another example is a fuse based filesystem that tries to enforce additional permissions on a FAT based mount point.
>
> From what i could google there are many FUSE based filesystems out there that do things during the open call but simply pass through the read/and write I/O calls to the local "lower" filesystem where they actually store the data.

So I think these are valid use-cases, and I just think that they should

 (a) be documented in the commit message as explanations of why people
would do this/

 (b) not be called "stacked", because that tends to have some other
connotations to fs people.

I don't know what a better term would be, but you yourself used "pass
through". Maybe that (perhaps together with a clarification that it's
a per-file thing) might work fine.

Btw, why is mmap not passed through? That sounds fairly simple and
straightforward, I'm not seeing why it would be missing.

                 Linus