I don't understand why the Oracle proprietary file system code ever needs to be accepted into the mainline kernel. Microsoft accomplished the same goal of shared folders using the 9P filesystem driver already in the Linux kernel. 9P is used for this also by QEMU, KVM and Xen. VirtualBox already has a virtio transport implementation as an option for networking. They just need to extend their support for virtio to include 9P over virtio. Looking over the 3,200 lines of code that makes up vboxfs, this looks to just duplicate a subset of the functionality of 9P and contributes nothing new other than using Oracle proprietary method instead of an established open standard. The VirtualBox people are just being lazy in not supporting 9P as the shared folder protocol and have a history of also being lazy in maintaining the code they have gotten mainlined into the kernel in the past. Adding more duplicate functionality that will likely go stale and poorly maintained doesn't seem worth it.
Here is Oracle's 3200+ vboxfs patch:
Here is VirtualBox's documentation indicating the virtio transport is already an option for networking:
Here is the documentation for the existing 9P file system driver:
Here is a Microsoft blog post about doing shared folders via 9P:
Here is the documentation for 9P with QEMU:
Here it is for KVM:
Here it is for Xen:
Anyone have a good reason why the kernel developers shouldn't tell Oracle to either use 9P or just use DKMS to add their proprietary file system driver? Is it likely that any other third party will ever make use of vboxsf instead of just using 9P in the future? Or will the vboxsf always be just a resource for one virtualization app from one company and never really be of generalized use beyond that? How can even MIcrosoft get this right and Oracle still claim they need their own method?
Seriously! Just use the well vetted and already available 9P client driver already in the kernel like everyone else!
Here is Oracle's 3200+ vboxfs patch:
Here is VirtualBox's documentation indicating the virtio transport is already an option for networking:
Here is the documentation for the existing 9P file system driver:
Here is a Microsoft blog post about doing shared folders via 9P:
Here is the documentation for 9P with QEMU:
Here it is for KVM:
Here it is for Xen:
Anyone have a good reason why the kernel developers shouldn't tell Oracle to either use 9P or just use DKMS to add their proprietary file system driver? Is it likely that any other third party will ever make use of vboxsf instead of just using 9P in the future? Or will the vboxsf always be just a resource for one virtualization app from one company and never really be of generalized use beyond that? How can even MIcrosoft get this right and Oracle still claim they need their own method?
Seriously! Just use the well vetted and already available 9P client driver already in the kernel like everyone else!
Comment