[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsNwsWJC+x8jL6kDzYhENQQ+aUYAV9wkdpQNT-FNMXyAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 12:34:54 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent re-use of FUSE superblock after force unmount
On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 11:37, Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > No progress has been made in the past decade with regard to suspend.
> > I mainly put that down to lack of interest.
> >
> That is unfortunate.
>
> > It is a legitimate operation, but one that is not guaranteed to leave
> > the system in a clean state.
> Sure, I don't think I can argue about it. The current behaviour is a problem,
> however, since there is no other way to ensure the system can suspend
> reliably but force unmount - we try normal unmount first and proceed with
> force if that fails. Do you think that the approach proposed in this patchset
> is a reasonable path to mitigate the issue?
At a glance it's a gross hack. I can think of more than one way in
which this could be achieved without adding a new field to struct
super_block.
But... what I'd really prefer is if the underlying issue of fuse vs.
suspend was properly addressed instead of adding band-aids. And that
takes lots more resources, for sure, and the result is not guaranteed.
But you could at least give it a try.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists