From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 5 15:47:22 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 A20DF308; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnn@freebsd.org) Received: from vps.hungerhost.com (vps.hungerhost.com [216.38.53.176]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79141134A; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [209.249.190.124] (port=49907 helo=gnnmac.hudson-trading.com) by vps.hungerhost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Uv8ED-0002HI-2S; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:47:21 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: New fusefs implementation not usable with multiple fusefs mounts From: George Neville-Neil In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:47:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EF944D8-0D08-433D-BFD7-917631E3264E@freebsd.org> References: To: Kevin Oberman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - vps.hungerhost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - freebsd.org X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: vps.hungerhost.com: authenticated_id: gnn@neville-neil.com Cc: Attilio Rao , 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: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:47:22 -0000 On Jul 2, 2013, at 18:46 , Kevin Oberman wrote: > 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. >=20 > I do not understand, new fusefs implementation was never committed to > stable branch to my knowledge. > Did you backport manually? >=20 > BTW I cc'ed George which should maintain the module. >=20 > Attilio >=20 > Attilio, >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Thanks for copying George. I didn't realize that he had taken over the = code. I won't bu you about it again.=20 Actually I too have no time for this code as other things have come up. = It's time to find someone who really needs this on a long term basis. Best, George