Re: [PATCH 1/5] fuse: allow synchronous FUSE_INIT

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:22:21AM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 5:26 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
> >
> > FUSE_INIT has always been asynchronous with mount.  That means that the
> > server processed this request after the mount syscall returned.
> >
> > This means that FUSE_INIT can't supply the root inode's ID, hence it
> > currently has a hardcoded value.  There are other limitations such as not
> > being able to perform getxattr during mount, which is needed by selinux.
> >
> > To remove these limitations allow server to process FUSE_INIT while
> > initializing the in-core super block for the fuse filesystem.  This can
> > only be done if the server is prepared to handle this, so add
> > FUSE_DEV_IOC_SYNC_INIT ioctl, which
> >
> >  a) lets the server know whether this feature is supported, returning
> >  ENOTTY othewrwise.
> >
> >  b) lets the kernel know to perform a synchronous initialization
> >
> > The implementation is slightly tricky, since fuse_dev/fuse_conn are set up
> > only during super block creation.  This is solved by setting the private
> > data of the fuse device file to a special value ((struct fuse_dev *) 1) and
> > waiting for this to be turned into a proper fuse_dev before commecing with
> > operations on the device file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/fuse/fuse_dev_i.h      |   13 +++++++-
> >  fs/fuse/fuse_i.h          |    5 ++-
> >  include/uapi/linux/fuse.h |    1 +
> >  fs/fuse/cuse.c            |    3 +-
> >  fs/fuse/dev.c             |   74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  fs/fuse/dev_uring.c       |    4 +-
> >  fs/fuse/inode.c           |   50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  7 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> btw, I think an updated version of this has already been merged into
> the fuse for-next tree (commit dfb84c330794)

Thanks for letting me know!

(I don't develop against for-next. ;))

--D

> Thanks,
> Joanne
>