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
|