From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 2 22:46:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEA46D5; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:46:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321221A6F; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j1so7195636oag.32 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:46:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DpXzrOj/Li3xoHoVL/lXjDf6X/wC+lzYZligoTxh4V4=; b=PHL1Kf3bUAiFixF+4rycWKtHKYGjfPkx0CBYhMhfoghzTpSnQrBpdap0q3nuP+y0xZ 4G1YL1Qg004QfDPr2Im/vVuvsrMYKXHh/p9PBVqVkijUYsZvJQJ5NHCfwCLwL/NUL9dR XVP9K4QXiJlNQy0TOGviaPJwWOLnZwTrQb8Z10NwtsVGCYcIiwVms04u7hzSPVdYuAtg BZjsuvW62TS9svLcMdu/40rDtXErHEdoUoa3f4u9DSY5XSpWWxkFadnDw6RmFrOwRN4/ rxUApWE5jk8aKDdGF0/Dhtm/HJhY6avsPWiOnwMWHO2lueDUoGmYq7C44tGqoth8A93z K3jw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.52.165 with SMTP id u5mr13087444oeo.15.1372805181794; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.112.212 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:46:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:46:21 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: y5wPx6dGHTdnsbkeQlieJ9prw_c Message-ID: Subject: Re: New fusefs implementation not usable with multiple fusefs mounts From: Kevin Oberman To: Attilio Rao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: George Neville-Neil , fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:46:22 -0000 On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Kevin Oberman > wrote: > > I have been using the new fusefs for a while and have had to back it out > and > > go back to the old kernel module. I keep getting corrupted file NTFS > systems > > and I think I understand why, > > > > I mount two NTFS systems: > > /dev/fuse 184319948 110625056 73694892 60% /media/Media > > /dev/fuse 110636028 104943584 5692444 95% /media/Windows7_OS > > > > Note that both systems are mounted on /dev/fuse and I am assured that > this > > is by design. Both work fine for reads and seem to work for writes. Then > I > > unmount either of them. Both are unmounted, at least as far as the OS is > > concerned. There is no way to unmount one and leave the other mounted. It > > appears that any attempt to unmount either system does a proper unmount > of > > /media/Media, but, while marking /media/Windows7_OS as unmounted, > actually > > does not do so. The device ends up corrupt and the only way I have been > able > > to clean it is to boot Windows and have a disk check run. Media never > seems > > to get corrupted. > > > > Any further information I might gather before filing a PR? I am running > on > > 9.1 stable, but havehad the problem since the patch set first became > > available on 9.0-stable. > > I do not understand, new fusefs implementation was never committed to > stable branch to my knowledge. > Did you backport manually? > > BTW I cc'ed George which should maintain the module. > > Attilio > Attilio, Actually, you provided the patches for 9-Stable way back when you first did them and we had an exchange on current@ about their use on 9-stable and their operation including the mounts all being on /dev/fuse. I also edited the mount_fuse man pages to clarify the awkward wording of the original (which you didn't write). They still apply pretty cleanly and I continued using them until about 3 weeks ago when I removed them to test whether they were responsible for the issues I was seeing. Since I got corruption most every time I unmounted the file systems after having written to the Windows one, I am now pretty sure that it does not happen when I use the old kernel module. The analysis of the problem is purely speculation, but fits the behavior. If it is correct, I would expect the same issues to occur with head. Thanks for copying George. I didn't realize that he had taken over the code. I won't bu you about it again. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com