On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:15:36PM GMT, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 07:31, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I feel like this is too much restrictive and I am still not sure why > > blocking on fuse folios served by non-privileges fuse server is worse > > than blocking on folios served from the network. > > Might be. But historically fuse had this behavior and I'd be very > reluctant to change that unconditionally. > > With a systemwide maximal timeout for fuse requests it might make > sense to allow sync(2), etc. to wait for fuse writeback. > > Without a timeout allowing fuse servers to block sync(2) indefinitely > seems rather risky. > Thanks Miklos for the response. Just to be clear on where we disagree, let me point out what I think is right and please tell me where you disagree: 1. Fuse server should never access fuse folios (and files, directories, mounts, etc) directly it is providing. 2. Fuse server should not get blocked indirectly on the fuse folios (and related objects). This series is removing one such scenario caused due to reclaim. 3. Non fuse server processes can be blocked on fuse folios (and related objects) directly and indirectly. Am I understanding correctly that we disagree on (3)? thanks, Shakeel
