Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Minor sys_umount fix (changes semantics slightly) | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:51:17 +0100 (MET) | From | (Rogier Wolff) |
| |
Guest section DW wrote: > > > Also, think of the very common case where people mount a CDROM > > > on /dev/cdrom which is a symlink to /dev/sr0 or /dev/hdc or so. > > > > Huh? That's not the issue. The issue is: > > > > I use: > > mount /cdrom > > ls /cdrom > > umount /cdrom > > while: > > ls -l /cdrom > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 18 20:46 cdrom -> mnt/cdrom > > > > I am not sure what you are saying here. > The issue is, "should the umount system call follow symlinks?".
Ehmm. I think I have to agree with Andre here: "Listen to Andries. He's right."
Sorry to have interrupted.
> Now if in this example the umount system call is executed for the > path "/cdrom" (which it isnt for the mount/umount that I maintain, > but that is beside the point, the question is what the kernel should > do) then it should follow symlinks in order to reach the mount > point. But that makes Malcolm unhappy, because his filesystem has a > symlink at the root, and umount would happily continue following > symlinks past the mount point.
> As it is, umount can be called with both a mount point and a special > device. But it would be unworkable to have the behaviour depend on > the type of argument; that type is known first after following the > symlinks. So, really, we want to follow symlinks in all cases, I > think.
Ehm. May I ask: What would a filesystem with a symlink at its root be doing when mounted?
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* "I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |