Re: [PATCH 0/2] Prevent re-use of FUSE superblock after force unmount

[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