> > > To get more serious and practical though, I think the solution is to
> > > fuzz the userspace/kernelspace distinction. What we really want to
> > > do is freeze things that submit I/O, then sync, then freeze anything
> > > that processes I/O and needs to be frozen. In effect, redefine fuse
> > > processes as freezeable kernel threads.
> >
> > Another myth, that has been debunked already. The problem is: how do
> > you define fuse processes? There's no theoretical or even practial
> > way to do that.
>
> No theoretical or practical way?! I'll freely admit to being quite ignorant
> about fuse, but surely there's some way by which they can be distinguished.
How? OK, there are some tasks, that read and/or write /dev/fuse. And
there are some that just communicate in some way with the above.
These could all be considered "fuse tasks", but those that don't do
I/O on /dev/fuse are indistinguishable from non-fuse tasks.
And for example sshfs does have such a thread, which is in the reply
chain, yet never communicates directly with the fuse kernel module.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
