Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 26 [ vfs | block | fuse (cpuidle) releated? ]

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Dear Greg Kroah-Hartman,

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:32:36 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> > Ok. My understanding is that the misc device registered by
> > fs/fuse/dev.c:fuse_dev_init() makes the assumption that
> > file->private_data == NULL when a misc device is opened. But I'm not
> > sure to fully understand the code flow of the FUSE filesystem.
> > 
> > And since it doesn't provide its own implementation of the ->open()
> > operation, the misc infrastructure was leaving the file->private_data
> > defined to NULL before my patch.
> > 
> > With my patch, the file->private_data gets assigned unconditionally
> > (regardless of whether the misc driver provides or does not provide a
> > ->open() operation) which modifies the unwritten assumption that fuse
> > was making about the initial value of file->private_data. I believe the
> > assumption made by fuse over the initial value of this variable is a
> > bit fragile.
> > 
> > Maybe the FUSE code needs to be slightly adjusted to not make this
> > assumption?
> 
> As the FUSE code was working properly before this change, I think this
> misc core change needs to be reverted, so I'll go do that in a bit.

Yes, sure, that's the right immediate action to take.

Long term, I believe the FUSE code seems to be making a fragile
assumption, and that might require some additional investigation.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com