On Wed 2008-01-09 09:47:31, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > >> On Tue 2008-01-08 12:35:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > >>> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> > > >>> > > >>> Use FS_SAFE for "fuse" fs type, but not for "fuseblk". > > >>> > > >>> FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged users. This > > >>> has also been verified in practice over many years. In addition unprivileged > > >> Eh? So 'kill -9 no longer works' and 'suspend no longer works' is not > > >> considered important enough to even mention? > > > > > > No. Because in practice they don't seem to matter. Also because > > > there's no way in which fuse could be done differently to address > > > these issues. > > > > Could you clarify, please? I hope I'm getting the wrong end of the stick > > - it sounds to me like you and Pavel are saying that this patch breaks > > suspending to ram (and hibernating?) but you want to push it anyway > > because you haven't been able to produce an instance, don't think > > suspending or hibernating matter and couldn't fix fuse anyway? > > This patch has nothing to do with suspend or hibernate. What this > patchset does, is help get rid of fusermount, a suid-root mount > helper. It also opens up new possibilities, which are not fuse > related. > > Fuse has bad interactions with the freezer, theoretically. In > practice, I remember just one bug report (that sparked off this whole > "do we need freezer, or don't we" flamefest), that actually got fixed > fairly quickly, ...maybe. Rafael probably remembers better. In practice, if the "unpriviledged fuse" gets enabled, any user can prevent suspend/hibernation from working. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
