Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 May 2022 13:38:41 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent re-use of FUSE superblock after force unmount | From | Bernd Schubert <> |
| |
On 5/11/22 13:19, Daniil Lunev wrote: >> 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. > Can you advise what would be a better way to achieve that? > >> 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. > We do have a limited success with userspace level sequencing of processes, > but on the kernel level - it is all quite untrivial, as you mentioned. > I did some > research, and what I found pretty much a 9 years old thread which went > nowhere at the end [1]. We would also prefer if suspend just worked (and > we have a person looking into what is actually breaking with suspend), but > there is an unbounded amount of time for how long the investigation and > search for a solution may be ongoing given the complexity of the problem, > and in the meantime there is no way to work around the problem. > > Thanks, > Daniil > > [1] https://linux-kernel.vger.kernel.narkive.com/UeBWfN1V/patch-fuse-make-fuse-daemon-frozen-along-with-kernel-threads
So that sounds like anything that is waiting for a response cannot be frozen? Assuming there is an outstanding NFS request and the NFS server is down, suspend would not work until the NFS server comes back?
Thanks, Bernd
| |