[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: About /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts
    Hi Kasper :)

Kasper Dupont dixit:
> > If 'mount' treats specially the
> > mtab if it is a symlink... well, IMHO this is not correct. Yes, this
> The reason for mount not to update /etc/mtab if it is a symlink is
> not security concerns, but rather that it could be a symlink to
> /proc/mounts. Another problem is the way the update is actually
> done. A lockfile named /etc/mtab~ is created, and a new mtab is
> written to /etc/mtab.tmp which is later renamed on top of mtab.

The lockfile was the first reason why we did the symlink. The
/etc was readonly and mount failed.

> But if we
> are going to change mount in non-trivial ways, we should aim for a
> better longterm solution.

You're completely right ;) But, just as I told before, I have no
good solution. I don't remember clearly, but I think that we use
finally another solution for the embedded system, by using a 'fake'
etc, writeable, and after booting, mounting a readonly etc over the
old one, or something like that. Pretty good (I suppose) for the
embedded system, but not a solution for everyday use, IMHO.

By now I will do with /etc/mtab, but I think I will replace it
with a symlink to /proc, no matter if I lose options, etc... And
really I would like to write my own mount, just for my system, as
I've already done with other binaries. That's what I like free
software: I can write my own software without doing all the work from
zero, using the brains of people far more clever than me for helping
in the effort ;))

BTW, thanks for your interest in the issue :))

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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.073 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site