On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:19:30PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
A third way was suggested on the fuse-devel mailing list: adding a
system call to retreive a process' secondary groups. The prototype
would be moddled on getgroups(2):
int getgroups2(int gidsetlen, gid_t *gidset,
Currently we have both EOPNOTSUPP (Operation not supported) and
ENOTSUP (Not supported) errnos. EOPNOTSUPP is historical; ENOTSUP
was randomly added by POSIX relatively recently.
And lately I've noticed a tendency to conflate them, which isn't
healthy.
It is too late to do #define ENOTSUP
I did it again. gmail is trying to teach an old dog a new trick
-- Forwarded message --
From: Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Lost file-system story
To: David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:27
In article 20111213141930.ge15...@homeworld.netbsd.org,
Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hello
FUSE has no way to send the calling process secondary groups to the
filesystem. A filesystem that wants this operation currently has to
open a /proc file, read and parse the string
At 14:55 Uhr -0400 22.7.2011, David Riley wrote:
I filed this report a while back. Someone else has tested my fix on
non-PPC systems (x86, x86_64) and reported that it seems to work as well.
I'm attaching the patch against -current here;
[appended to PR kern/44412]
could someone give it a
look
So, I told some people that I'd run benchmarks to qualify the TLS
(Thread Local Storage) vs no-TLS overhead, both for Xen and native
setups, i386 and amd64.
For results, jump directly at the bottom of this mail.
=== Context ===
To compare GENERIC and XEN3 kernels, the GENERIC kernel was
At Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:06:23 +1030, Brett Lymn brett.l...@baesystems.com
wrote:
Subject: Re: Lost file-system story
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
fsck is supposed to handle *all* corruptions to the file system that can
occur as part of normal file
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Greg A. Woods wo...@planix.ca wrote:
At Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:06:23 +1030, Brett Lymn brett.l...@baesystems.com
wrote:
Subject: Re: Lost file-system story
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:38:57PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
fsck is supposed to handle *all*
You should be aware when rerunning benchmarks MP that unless we have
had a radical improvement since June, build.sh will run faster with 14 CPUs
hot than with 24.
Thor
At Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:49:31 -0500 (EST), Matt W. Benjamin
m...@linuxbox.com wrote:
Subject: Re: Lost file-system story
Why would sync not be effective under MNT_ASYNC? Use of sync is not
required to lead to consistency expect with respect to an arbitrary
point in time, but I don't think
Christos Zoulas chris...@astron.com wrote:
Don't you need a getuid2(pid_t pid)?
uid, gid and pid are passed inthe FUSE header, so we aready have them.
Why don't you add separate fuse messages to send and retrieve this
information? Then the kernel can notify if these have changed...
That
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:05:53AM +0100, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
At this point, I think I will fetch secondary groups through sysctl,
this seems to be the point of least resistance.
You are not worried about security issues resulting from the fact
that time will pass, and the process may do
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com wrote:
At this point, I think I will fetch secondary groups through sysctl,
this seems to be the point of least resistance.
You are not worried about security issues resulting from the fact
that time will pass, and the process may do other operations
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:04:06 +0100
m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
- a fixed lentgh header is highly desirable for performance
optimization. For instance glusterfs fetches the header and the data
using readv(2) with an iovec that has two slots. That way it gets write
date aligned on
hi,
At this point, I think I will fetch secondary groups through sysctl,
this seems to be the point of least resistance.
do you mean to implement fuse_getgroups for NetBSD with the sysctl?
if you are adding a #ifdef NetBSD block to the fuse, can't it use
a NetBSD-specific sidechannel to get
wo...@planix.ca (Greg A. Woods) writes:
easy, if not even easier, to do a mount -u -r
Does this work again?
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
A potential Snark may lurk in every tree.
mm_li...@pulsar-zone.net (Matthew Mondor) writes:
What does NFS do in this case? I seem to remember that it also imposes
a sane size limit, possibly even below NGROUPS_MAX, is it really the
case? If so, would this also be acceptable?
NFS (or rather the underlying SunRPC) passes an array of 16
17 matches
Mail list logo
