[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:40:28AM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
    > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >
    > ...
    > > > Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS?
    > >
    > > How hard is it to acknowledge the following little word:
    > >
    > > "regression"
    > >
    > > It's simple. You broke things. You may want to fix them, but you need to
    > > fix them in a way that does not break user space.
    > Trond has a point Linus.
    > What he "broke" is, for example, a ro mount being mounted as rw.
    > That *could* be a very serious security (etc.etc.) problem which he just fixed.
    > Anything depending on read-only not being enforced will cease to work, of
    > course, and that is what a few people complain about(!).
    > If ext3 in some rare case (which would still mean it hit a few thousand users)
    > failed to remember that a file had been marked read-only and allowed writes to
    > it, wouldn't we want to fix that too? It would cause regressions, but we'd fix
    > it, right?
    > mount passes back the error code on a failed mount. autofs passes that error
    > along too (when people configure syslog correctly). In short; when these
    > serious mistakes are made and caught, the admin sees an error in his logs.

    Hua explained already that seeing the error is not the same as fixing
    the error: he cannot fix it because NFS implies other systems we _must_
    co-operate with.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-08-31 10:31    [W:0.020 / U:0.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site