Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/19] fuse: fuse-over-io-uring

[Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>]

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 06:02:21PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> Hmm, initially I had thought about writing my own ring buffer, but then 
> io-uring got IORING_OP_URING_CMD, which seems to have exactly what we
> need? From interface point of view, io-uring seems easy to use here, 
> has everything we need and kind of the same thing is used for ublk - 
> what speaks against io-uring? And what other suggestion do you have?
> 
> I guess the same concern would also apply to ublk_drv. 
> 
> Well, decoupling from io-uring might help to get for zero-copy, as there
> doesn't seem to be an agreement with Mings approaches (sorry I'm only
> silently following for now).
> 
> From our side, a customer has pointed out security concerns for io-uring. 
> My thinking so far was to implemented the required io-uring pieces into 
> an module and access it with ioctls... Which would also allow to
> backport it to RHEL8/RHEL9.

Well, I've been starting to sketch out a ringbuffer() syscall, which
would work on any (supported) file descriptor and give you a ringbuffer
for reading or writing (or call it twice for both).

That seems to be what fuse really wants, no? You're already using a file
descriptor and your own RPC format, you just want a faster
communications channel.