Hi Leo, Am Freitag, dem 21.01.2022 um 02:41 -0500 schrieb Leo Famulari: > While testing a Borg update (patch attached), I noticed that the > FUSERMOUNT_DIR hack in Fuse 3 doesn't seem to work like it does with > Fuse 2. > > The 1.2.0b3 beta of the upcoming Borg release can use either Fuse 2 > (with python-llfuse) or Fuse 3 (with python-pyfuse3). > > The `borg mount` command works as expected with Fuse 2 / llfuse. > > But, with Fuse 3 / pyfuse3, it fails with: > > fuse: failed to exec fusermount3: No such file or directory > > When I commented out the FUSERMOUNT_DIR [0] substitution in the fuse- > 3 package and rebuilt Borg, `borg mount` instead gives us this, which > is expected, because this system does not have a setuid fusermount3: > > fusermount3: mount failed: Operation not permitted > > So, the substitution doesn't seem to help with Fuse 3: it just breaks > the lookup. > > You can apply the patch and test it out. And you can also observe the > optimal behaviour if you switch the borg package's fuse > implementation from pyfuse3 to llfuse / Fuse 2. > > Should we just remove the substitution in fuse-3? What is the behaviour if you have fusermount3 setuid? I know from gvfs (which also depends on Fuse 3), that adding the setuid binary *does* make gvfsd-fuse work again, so it'd be good to know if this works for borg as well. If not, we'd have to be careful not to introduce a regression.
Cheers
