[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: datagram vs stream sockets
Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost> wrote:
> Is this a "bug" inherent to the way FUSE itself works? Or an artifact
> of some FS-specific code used with FUSE? Or really introduced by the
> perfused(8) client-server protocol?
I think it is introduced by perfused(8).
On Linux, FUSE filesystems open a character device (/dev/fuse). We try
to emulate this on NetBSD, with perfused(8) creating a /dev/fuse socket.
The FUSE filesystem open("/dev/fuse") is hijacked as a
socket()/bind()/connect() by #include <perfuse.h> and linking with
I hoped I would not have to hijack read() and write() too, but it might
> I don't immediately understand the problem with fork(2)+SOCK_DGRAM
The problem is not with the fork itself, but with the idea of having
each perfused process talking to its own FUSE filesystem.
With SOCK_DGRAM, there is no accept() call. Therefore, if I have
multiple filesystems, I have no way of sending the data to a given one
and not the others.
Main Index |
Thread Index |