Index | Thread | Search

From:
Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
Subject:
Re: Skip fuse FS by /usr/libexec/security
To:
Vitaliy Makkoveev <mvs@openbsd.org>
Cc:
Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>, tech@openbsd.org
Date:
Sun, 19 May 2024 08:34:59 +0200

Download raw body.

Thread
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 12:59:45AM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > On 18 May 2024, at 12:46, Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:08:09AM +0100, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2024 23:41:41 +0100,
> >> Vitaliy Makkoveev <mvs@openbsd.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I was confused with explicitly setting MNT_LOCAL on `mnt_flag' which
> >>> seems to be not required. However, it is enough to drop MNT_LOCAL in
> >>> corresponding `vfsconflist' entry.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Just tested, and it indeed ok.
> >> 
> >> If I recall right, I've started my original patch as drop MNT_LOCAL in
> >> vfsconflist but after that I've tried to keep it as option, that makes
> >> things much more complicated and confusing, indeed.
> >> 
> >>> Index: sys/kern/vfs_init.c
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/vfs_init.c,v
> >>> diff -u -p -r1.43 vfs_init.c
> >>> --- sys/kern/vfs_init.c	26 Dec 2019 13:30:54 -0000	1.43
> >>> +++ sys/kern/vfs_init.c	17 May 2024 22:25:20 -0000
> >>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static struct vfsconf vfsconflist[] = {
> >>> #endif
> >>> 
> >>> #ifdef FUSE
> >>> -	{ &fusefs_vfsops, MOUNT_FUSEFS, 18, 0, MNT_LOCAL,
> >>> +	{ &fusefs_vfsops, MOUNT_FUSEFS, 18, 0, 0,
> >>> 	    sizeof(struct fusefs_args) },
> >>> #endif
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Shall we preserve comment with explanation why it's no MNT_LOCAL here?
> >> 
> 
> It was suitable in fusefs_mount() to explain why we clean this flag.
> But in the `vfsconflist' it is declared as declared.
> 
> >> BTW a bit above I see:
> >> 
> >>        { &nfs_vfsops, MOUNT_NFS, 2, 0, MNT_SWAPPABLE,
> >> 	    sizeof(struct nfs_args) },
> >> 
> >> which seems quite wired because keep SWAP on NFS probably extreamly bad idea
> >> due to network latency. Shall it be dropped as well? Have I missed something?
> > 
> > This is for pure diskless setups and "works". While it is not great to
> > swap on NFS it is sometimes the only way. So no, this should remain.
> 
> So, no objections to commit my diff?

No, that part is OK

-- 
:wq Claudio