fuse version

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

fuse version

Zbyszek Żółkiewski
Hi,

Quick question: Any plans to support newer version of fuse?

thanks,

_
Zbyszek Żółkiewski


signature.asc (267 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fuse version

Stefan Sperling-5
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:21:17AM +0200, Zbyszek Żółkiewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quick question: Any plans to support newer version of fuse?
>
> thanks,
>
> _
> Zbyszek Żółkiewski
>

Your question is not specific enough.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fuse version

Zbyszek Żółkiewski
Hi,

llfuse requires FUSE 2.9.0 or newer, i think OpenBSD uses 2.6, am I right?

thanks,

_
Zbyszek Żółkiewski

> Wiadomość napisana przez Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> w dniu 24.10.2017, o godz. 11:44:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:21:17AM +0200, Zbyszek Żółkiewski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Quick question: Any plans to support newer version of fuse?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> _
>> Zbyszek Żółkiewski
>>
>
> Your question is not specific enough.


signature.asc (267 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fuse version

Stefan Sperling-5
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 07:46:29PM +0200, Zbyszek Żółkiewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> llfuse requires FUSE 2.9.0 or newer, i think OpenBSD uses 2.6, am I right?
>
> thanks,

Yes, OpenBSD's API declares version 2.6. But it's not the same implementation
as on Linux. I don't know if even 2.6 support can be considered complete.

Since llfuse seems to be a Python wrapper for fuse, it probably requires
a larger subset of the fuse API than most other fuse consumers.

So what you're asking for requires a complete API and llfuse audit just
to document requirements, and then implementations of any missing APIs
in libfuse and/or the kernel.
That's quite a big project. The answer for now will probably be:
If you invest time and work into it, it might happen. Otherwise, no.

More help on fuse support would certainly be welcome, I think.
It has not been actively maintained for some time.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fuse version

Martin Pieuchot
On 25/10/17(Wed) 12:01, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> [...]
> More help on fuse support would certainly be welcome, I think.
> It has not been actively maintained for some time.

Exactly.  There are many way to help.  It's not necessarily hard.   Helg
Bredow has been looking at some issues recently.  But it would be great
to see more regression tests, so make sure our libfuse matches what the
original 2.6 version does.  More documentation/man pages would also be
welcome.  Fuzzing the library would also help catch bugs.

Alternatively changing the API to match a newer version would also be
welcomed.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fuse version

Zbyszek Żółkiewski
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-5
Thanks for the clarification.
Actually llfuse is needed by S3QL (http://www.rath.org/s3ql-docs/about.html). I am considering migration to OpenBSD but this is blocker for now.

Do anyone know similar project that runs on OpenBSD? (needed options are: Immutable Trees, Copy-on-Write and Encryption)

_
Zbyszek Żółkiewski

> Wiadomość napisana przez Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> w dniu 25.10.2017, o godz. 12:01:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 07:46:29PM +0200, Zbyszek Żółkiewski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> llfuse requires FUSE 2.9.0 or newer, i think OpenBSD uses 2.6, am I right?
>>
>> thanks,
>
> Yes, OpenBSD's API declares version 2.6. But it's not the same implementation
> as on Linux. I don't know if even 2.6 support can be considered complete.
>
> Since llfuse seems to be a Python wrapper for fuse, it probably requires
> a larger subset of the fuse API than most other fuse consumers.
>
> So what you're asking for requires a complete API and llfuse audit just
> to document requirements, and then implementations of any missing APIs
> in libfuse and/or the kernel.
> That's quite a big project. The answer for now will probably be:
> If you invest time and work into it, it might happen. Otherwise, no.
>
> More help on fuse support would certainly be welcome, I think.
> It has not been actively maintained for some time.


signature.asc (267 bytes) Download Attachment