Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220511013057.245827-1-dlunev@chromium.org> <CAJfpegsmyY+D4kK3ov51FLGA=RkyGDKMcYiMo2zBqYuFNs78JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAONX=-dqY64VkqF6cNYvm8t-ad8XRqDhELP9icfPTPD2iLobLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJfpegvUZheWb3eJwVrpBDYzwQH=zQsuq9R8mpcXb3fqzzEdiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAONX=-cxA-tZOSo33WK9iJU61yeDX8Ct_PwOMD=5WXLYTJ-Mjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAONX=-cxA-tZOSo33WK9iJU61yeDX8Ct_PwOMD=5WXLYTJ-Mjg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 12:34:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsNwsWJC+x8jL6kDzYhENQQ+aUYAV9wkdpQNT-FNMXyAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent re-use of FUSE superblock after force unmount
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 11:37, Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.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