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

sshfs 2.x not working when controlled by pexpect #142

Closed
erjoalgo opened this issue Aug 30, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

sshfs 2.x not working when controlled by pexpect #142

erjoalgo opened this issue Aug 30, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@erjoalgo
Copy link

erjoalgo commented Aug 30, 2018

When I run the sshfs command from within a pexpect-controlled process and without the debug flag (-d), although the process exits with status 0, the share is not mounted.

With the debug flag mounting works as expected, but in the foreground, and umounts after exit.

Other users have reported this problem:

https://serverfault.com/questions/117776/sshfs-is-not-working

@erjoalgo
Copy link
Author

erjoalgo commented Sep 6, 2018

Forgot to include version:

$ sshfs --version
FUSE library version: 2.9.7
fusermount version: 2.9.7
using FUSE kernel interface version 7.19
SSHFS version 2.8

@Nikratio
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the report! Is this still a problem with the newest SSHFS version (3.x)? I'm afraid this will probably not be fixed in 2.x unless someone else volunteers to do the work.

If the problem still exists in 3.x: what happens if you specify -f instead of -d? What is the output (presumably read by pexpect, but there should be a way to see what pexpect sees) when the mount does not come up?

@Nikratio Nikratio changed the title running sshfs noninteractively does not mount, exit status is 0 sshfs 2.x not working when controlled by pexpect Oct 21, 2018
@Nikratio
Copy link
Contributor

I'm closing this bug report for now. Please note that this isn't meant to imply that you haven't found a bug - you most likely have and I'm grateful that you took the time to report it. However, without additional information it is unlikely that anyone is going to be able to do anything but this, and I prefer to use the issue tracker as a tool to manage ongoing work (as opposed to a database of known/potential issues).

Please feel free to re-open this if you can provide the requested information!

@erjoalgo
Copy link
Author

Thanks. It appears that the issue may have been related to the parent process exiting without detaching the child.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants