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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220511222910.635307-1-dlunev@chromium.org> <20220512082832.v2.2.I692165059274c30b59bed56940b54a573ccb46e4@changeid>
 <YoQfls6hFcP3kCaH@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <YoQihi4OMjJj2Mj0@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YoQihi4OMjJj2Mj0@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 13:57:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtQUP045X5N8ib1rUTKzSj-giih0eL=jC5-MP7aVgyN_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 00:32, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:20:06PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > 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...
>
> ... because Miklos had suggested that, apparently ;-/  I disagree -
> that approach has more side effects.  "mount will skip that sucker" is,
> AFAICS, the only effect of modiyfing test_super callback(s); yours, OTOH...

Yep, messing with the bdi doesn't look good.  Fuse always uses a
private bdi, so it's not even necessary.

Just removing from type->fs_supers should not have any side effects,
at least I can't spot any.

Fixing fuse_test_super() is not sufficient, as the fuseblk type goes
though get_tree_bdev().  That could be tweaked as well, but it would
end up with more complexity.

Thanks,
Miklos