Re: [PATCH 062/104] virtiofsd: Handle hard reboot

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Misono Tomohiro (address@hidden) wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden>
> > 
> > Handle a
> >   mount
> >   hard reboot (without unmount)
> >   mount
> > 
> > we get another 'init' which FUSE doesn't normally expect.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c 
> > b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > index 2d1d1a2e59..45125ef66a 100644
> > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > @@ -2436,7 +2436,21 @@ void fuse_session_process_buf_int(struct 
> > fuse_session *se,
> >              goto reply_err;
> >          }
> >      } else if (in->opcode == FUSE_INIT || in->opcode == CUSE_INIT) {
> > -        goto reply_err;
> > +        if (fuse_lowlevel_is_virtio(se)) {
> 
> > +            /*
> > +             * TODO: This is after a hard reboot typically, we need to do
> > +             * a destroy, but we can't reply to this request yet so
> > +             * we can't use do_destroy
> > +             */
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder what is the TODO actually. Is this just to provide a common
> function for both here and do_destroy() or more than that?

Yes, we really need to combine it somehow; but do_destroy is based
n responding to a request, but we don't have a normal request at this
point.

Dave

> Thanks
> Misono
> 
> > +            fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: reinit\n", __func__);
> > +            se->got_destroy = 1;
> > +            se->got_init = 0;
> > +            if (se->op.destroy) {
> > +                se->op.destroy(se->userdata);
> > +            }
> > +        } else {
> > +            goto reply_err;
> > +        }
> >      }
> >  
> >      err = EACCES;
> > -- 
> > 2.23.0
> 
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK