Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1529087

Re: [fuse-devel] fuse: feasible to distinguish between umount and abort?

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently, both a call to umount(2) and writing "1" to
> /sys/fs/fuse/connections/NNN/abort will put the /dev/fuse fd into the
> same state: reading from it returns ENODEV, and polling on it returns
> POLLERR.
>
> This causes problems for filesystems that want to ensure that the
> mountpoint is free when they exit. If accessing the device fd gives the
> above errors, they have to do an additional check to determine if they
> still need to unmount the mountpoint. This is difficult to do without
> race conditions (think of someone unmounting and immediately re-starting
> a new filesystem instance).
>
> Would it be possible to change the behavior of the /dev/fuse fd so that
> userspace can distinguish between a regular umount and use of the
> /sys/fs/fuse abort)?

Yes.  My proposal would be for the kernel to send FUSE_DESTROY
asynchronously and only return ENODEV once that request was read by
userspace.  Currently FUSE_DESTROY is sent synchronously for fuseblk
mounts, but not for plain fuse mounts.

Please file a bug somewhere.  I don't mind if kernel bugs are also
kept at the github project as long as they can easily be found.

Thanks,
Miklos

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

fuse: feasible to distinguish between umount and abort? Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2016-11-24 00:20 +0100
  Re: [fuse-devel] fuse: feasible to distinguish between umount and abort? Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> - 2016-11-24 10:20 +0100
    Re: [fuse-devel] fuse: feasible to distinguish between umount and abort? Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2016-11-25 01:40 +0100

csiph-web