Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

post-mount is-blockdev-in-mountinfo assertion breaks fuse mounts #1278

Open
ddiss opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

post-mount is-blockdev-in-mountinfo assertion breaks fuse mounts #1278

ddiss opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@ddiss
Copy link

ddiss commented May 10, 2024

Hi,

I'm trying to use udisks2 alongside lklfuse, which gets invoked via the following mount_options.conf:

[defaults]
vfat_drivers=lklfuse
vfat:lklfuse_allow=type=vfat,uid=$UID,gid=$GID...
vfat:lklfuse_defaults=type=vfat,uid=$UID,gid=$GID...
# mount.lklfuse is a simple wrapper around the binary called below
# <parse arguments to extract type string and escape remaining mount options>
/usr/bin/lklfuse "$dev" "$mnt" -o "type=${typeopt},opts=${optsopt}"

This appears to work okay in that lklfuse starts and successfully mounts the block device. However, udisksd immediately fails the subsequent!is_mounted check, due to the lack of block device node presence in /proc/self/mountinfo. The mountinfo entry for the successful lklfuse mount instead corresponds to a FUSE-derived MAJOR:MINOR.

I'm just wondering how to best resolve this issue. The simplest might be to simply check wether the mountpoint is present in mountinfo, instead of the MAJOR:MINOR, or perhaps ignore the is_mounted check if a specific config flag is present.
I'd appreciate any other tips or suggestions.

@tbzatek
Copy link
Member

tbzatek commented May 15, 2024

I don't think there's a way to make this work from the outside. UDisks is currently heavily based on major:minor number as primary device identifier. There's a dirty workaround for btrfs, nothing for fuse AFAIK. Interesting that ntfs-3g mounts do work fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants