Messages in this thread | | | From | Oliver Neukum <> | Subject | Re: freeze vs freezer | Date | Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:54:06 +0100 |
| |
Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 23:06:07 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: > Hi. > > Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 10:52:53 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: > >> Hi. > >> > >> Oliver Neukum wrote: > >>> Am Donnerstag 03 Januar 2008 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: > >>>> On top of this, I made a (too simple at the moment) freeze_filesystems > >>>> function which iterates through &super_blocks in reverse order, freezing > >>>> fuse filesystems or ordinary ones. I say 'too simple' because it doesn't > >>>> currently allow for the possibility of someone mounting (say) ext3 on > >>>> fuse, but that would just be an extension of what's already done. > >>> How do you deal with fuse server tasks using other fuse filesystems? > >> Since they're frozen in reverse order, the dependant one would be frozen > >> first. > > > > Say I do: > > > > a) mount fuse on /tmp/first > > b) mount fuse on /tmp/second > > > > Then the server task for (a) does "ls /tmp/second". So it will be frozen, > > right? How do you then freeze (a)? And keep in mind that the server task > > may have forked. > > I guess I should first ask, is this a real life problem or a > hypothetical twisted web? I don't see why you would want to make two > filesystems interdependent - it sounds like the way to create livelock > and deadlocks in normal use, before we even begin to think about > hibernating.
Good questions. I personally don't use fuse, but I do care about power management. The problem I see is that an unprivileged user could make that dependency, even inadvertedly.
Regards Oliver
| |