From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 22 04:16:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C4416A403; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:16:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (ns1.pittgoth.com [216.38.206.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB8F43D46; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:16:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (net-ix.gw.ai.net [205.134.160.6] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3M5L6Ix007851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:21:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:16:35 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: John Baldwin Message-Id: <20060422001635.247a8b88.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1A949C80-E65D-4349-8028-8B0EB1A91D27@FreeBSD.org> References: <200604210714.k3L7EQhD046878@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060421161321.J44089@fledge.watson.org> <20060421212322.2f5b3fa8.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <1A949C80-E65D-4349-8028-8B0EB1A91D27@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_vfsops.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:16:49 -0000 On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:33:06 -0400 John Baldwin wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:15:15 +0100 (BST) > > Robert Watson wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Tom Rhodes wrote: > >> > >>> trhodes 2006-04-21 07:14:25 UTC > >>> > >>> FreeBSD src repository > >>> > >>> Modified files: > >>> sys/ufs/ffs ffs_vfsops.c > >>> Log: > >>> Remove what I believe are two useless ifdefs. If a user or > >>> administrator > >>> enables multilabel, or any option for that matter, most likely > >>> they have > >>> a reason. This will allow users to see that mulilabel is > >>> enabled via an > >>> issued "mount" command and remove an annoying warning - printed > >>> only when > >>> a MAC kernel is not installed - on boot up. > >> > >> This seems incorrect to me. You have also removed the warnings > >> associated > >> with trying to use multi-label and ACL-enabled file systems on > >> kernels not > >> configured to support them, which can lead to highly undesirable > >> behavior, > >> hence the warnings. The mount point flags are intended to reflect > >> the current > >> mode of operation, and setting the flags when the operational mode > >> isn't > >> supported doesn't seem right. > >> > > > > 4: With regards to number 2, I think the option should at least > > be spit out with all other options when using mount(8) to > > review file system information. > > You might want to look at softupdates as a prior example. If you > marked a > filesystem with softupdates but didn't have softupdates compiled into > the > kernel, mount didn't show softupdates as being enabled (IIRC). I think > mount should show you the actual features of the filesystem that are > actually > working rather than implying that an optional feature is working when it > actually isn't. If you are depending on the labels for security > purposes, I > think it is useful to know if you boot a kernel that is missing the > required > support and potentially leaves your data unprotected. Which is why I suggested that, similar to Linux, we make everything an option instead of either Warning before you build/install the new kernel or add the addition headache of turning it on later. Thus, I'm still of the opinion that one does not blindly add a newfs option during the install without understanding what's going on. > > > I'll revert it if you feel strongly about it; however, I want it > > to be known what my opinion is. And I find the warnings > > extremely annoying and have answered at least one question as > > to why "mount don't show me correct output." Yes, real quote. :) > > mount != tunefs. tunefs will tell you what options are enabled in the Yes. > filesystem, but I think mount should only tell you the options that are > actually in force. Once they're enabled does that not mean they are in force? -- Tom Rhodes