On Sat, 31 May 2025 at 03:08, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The best reason that I can think of is that normally the process that > owns the fd (and hence is releasing it) should be made to wait for > the release, because normally we want processes that generate file > activity to pay those costs. That argument seems to apply to all fuse variants. But fuse does get away with async release and I don't see why fuseblk would be different in this respect. Trying to hack around the problems of sync release with a task flag that servers might or might not have set does not feel a very robust solution. > Also: is it a bug that the kernel only sends FUSE_DESTROY on umount for > fuseblk filesystems? I'd have thought that you'd want to make umount > block until the fuse server is totally done. OTOH I guess I could see > an argument for not waiting for potentially hung servers, etc. It's a potential DoS. With allow_root we could arguably enable FUSE_DESTROY, since the mounter is explicitly acknowledging this DoS possibilty. Thanks, Miklos
