Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: filesystems: add fuse-passthrough.rst

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2777 bytes --]

On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 01:16:42PM +0800, Chen Linxuan via B4 Relay wrote:
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/fuse-passthrough.rst | 139 +++++++++++++++++++++++++

Add the docs to Documentation/filesystems/index.rst toctree.

> +FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) passthrough is a feature designed to improve the
> +performance of FUSE filesystems for I/O operations. Typically, FUSE operations
> +involve communication between the kernel and a userspace FUSE daemon, which can
> +introduce overhead. Passthrough allows certain operations on a FUSE file to
"incur overhead."
> +bypass the userspace daemon and be executed directly by the kernel on an
> +underlying "backing file".
> +
> +This is achieved by the FUSE daemon registering a file descriptor (pointing to
> +the backing file on a lower filesystem) with the FUSE kernel module. The kernel
> +then receives an identifier (`backing_id`) for this registered backing file.
                               (``backing_id``)
> +When a FUSE file is subsequently opened, the FUSE daemon can, in its response to
> +the ``OPEN`` request, include this ``backing_id`` and set the
> +``FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH`` flag. This establishes a direct link for specific
> +operations.

> <snipped>...

> +The ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` requirement acts as a safeguard against these issues,
> +restricting this powerful capability to trusted processes. As noted in the
> +kernel code (``fs/fuse/passthrough.c`` in ``fuse_backing_open()``):

I don't see any comments in fuse_backing_open() besides TODO. Perhaps the
sentence can be removed?

> +
> +Discussions suggest that exposing information about these backing files, perhaps
> +through a dedicated interface under ``/sys/fs/fuse/connections/``, could be a
> +step towards relaxing this capability. This would be analogous to how
> +``io_uring`` exposes its "fixed files", which are also visible via ``fdinfo``
> +and accounted under the registering user's ``RLIMIT_NOFILE``.

Where are pointers (links) to discussions? These can be added to the docs.

> +As a general principle for new kernel features that allow userspace to instruct
> +the kernel to perform direct operations on its behalf based on user-provided
> +file descriptors, starting with a higher privilege requirement (like
> +``CAP_SYS_ADMIN``) is a conservative and common security practice. This allows
> +the feature to be used and tested while further security implications are
> +evaluated and addressed. As Amir Goldstein mentioned in one of the discussions,
> +there was "no proof that this is the only potential security risk" when the
> +initial privilege checks were put in place.

Discussion links please.

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]