Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 22:20:06 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
        fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, tytso@mit.edu, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount
Message-ID: <YoQfls6hFcP3kCaH@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <20220511222910.635307-1-dlunev@chromium.org>
 <20220512082832.v2.2.I692165059274c30b59bed56940b54a573ccb46e4@changeid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220512082832.v2.2.I692165059274c30b59bed56940b54a573ccb46e4@changeid>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:29:10AM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> Force unmount of FUSE severes the connection with the user space, even
> if there are still open files. Subsequent remount tries to re-use the
> superblock held by the open files, which is meaningless in the FUSE case
> after disconnect - reused super block doesn't have userspace counterpart
> attached to it and is incapable of doing any IO.

	Why not simply have those simply rejected by fuse_test_super()?
Looks like that would be much smaller and less invasive patch...
Confused...