3 ms·

The only "easy path" is if there exists a working fuse implementation of the same filesystem. Then there is a good fallback path for the users who still need su

The only "easy path" is if there exists a working fuse implementation of the same filesystem. Then there is a good fallback path for the users who still need support.

Dylan16807 3y ago
You can always run the kernel implementation as a fuse filesystem with guestmount. Side note: I feel almost gaslit, it's really hard to find any mention of guestmount running a VM outside this single page https://libguestfs.org/guestfs-internals.1.html https://libguestfs.org/guestfs-internals.1.html
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  guestfs has some really useful tools that are, as you've noted, seemingly esoteric.
- pengaru 3y ago
  That's an interesting approach. It's too bad linux can't already run any in-kernel filesystem as a user process via FUSE, when you prefer greater isolation in exchange for worse performance, at the flip of a mount option. There's no technical reason for this to not be possible IMO... it's just a product of the tight coupling of everything in-kernel, as implemented today. I'm short on time to confirm at the moment, but I believe it was this [0] talk that left me with the impression kernel devs were exploring general solutions of this nature. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjv8Jv58bMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjv8Jv58bMs
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Except in this case there will no longer be such a thing as "the kernel implementation". You'd have to run an older kernel, too. That's a ticking time bomb, more a migration/recovery strategy than something one could recommend longer term.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    It's really not a "ticking time bomb". The older kernel is only running as a guest in a VM. It will eventually stop working (e.g. when Intel changes x86), but it's not really a security issue.
ilyt 3y ago
Well, till it is your boot FS. and there is performance penalty too

3 ms·

The only "easy path" is if there exists a working fuse implementation of the same filesystem. Then there is a good fallback path for the users who still need su

by Tuna-Fish 3y ago

The only "easy path" is if there exists a working fuse implementation of the same filesystem. Then there is a good fallback path for the users who still need support.

Dylan16807 3y ago
You can always run the kernel implementation as a fuse filesystem with guestmount. Side note: I feel almost gaslit, it's really hard to find any mention of guestmount running a VM outside this single page https://libguestfs.org/guestfs-internals.1.html https://libguestfs.org/guestfs-internals.1.html
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  guestfs has some really useful tools that are, as you've noted, seemingly esoteric.
- pengaru 3y ago
  That's an interesting approach. It's too bad linux can't already run any in-kernel filesystem as a user process via FUSE, when you prefer greater isolation in exchange for worse performance, at the flip of a mount option. There's no technical reason for this to not be possible IMO... it's just a product of the tight coupling of everything in-kernel, as implemented today. I'm short on time to confirm at the moment, but I believe it was this [0] talk that left me with the impression kernel devs were exploring general solutions of this nature. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjv8Jv58bMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjv8Jv58bMs
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Except in this case there will no longer be such a thing as "the kernel implementation". You'd have to run an older kernel, too. That's a ticking time bomb, more a migration/recovery strategy than something one could recommend longer term.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    It's really not a "ticking time bomb". The older kernel is only running as a guest in a VM. It will eventually stop working (e.g. when Intel changes x86), but it's not really a security issue.
ilyt 3y ago
Well, till it is your boot FS. and there is performance penalty too