New fusefs implementation not usable with multiple fusefs mounts

[George Neville-Neil]

On Jul 2, 2013, at 18:46 , Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> 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. 

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