MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87a8cp3i6o.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org>
References: <87a8cp3i6o.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:10:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsaOBE-4MUZBT=pMSYsTD7kMmstrFfU5D7MYuYw+f15aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] fuse: feasible to distinguish between umount and abort?
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1247
Lines: 29

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