Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:39:14 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: rodrigc@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, wb@freebie.xs4all.nl Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/mount Makefile extern.h mount_ufs.c Message-ID: <200601311339.17828.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060130.102458.41650754.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060128223343.GE2341@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060129000818.GF2341@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060130.102458.41650754.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 30 January 2006 12:24, Warner Losh wrote: > From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/mount Makefile extern.h mount_ufs.c > Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:08:18 +1100 > > > On Sat, 2006-Jan-28 23:57:00 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > >On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:33:43AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote.. > > > > > >> On Fri, 2006-Jan-27 21:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > >> >On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 06:40:17PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:22:56PM +0000, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > > >> >> > rodrigc 2005-11-23 23:22:56 UTC > > >> >> > > > >> >> > FreeBSD src repository > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Modified files: > > >> >> > sbin/mount Makefile extern.h > > >> >> > Removed files: > > >> >> > sbin/mount mount_ufs.c > > >> >> > Log: > > >> >> > Remove UFS-specific parts from mount(8). > > >> >> > For mounting UFS, all mount options are passed directly to > > >> >> > nmount(), without any UFS-specific logic. > > >> >> > > >> >> Where do we stand on making 'mount /' from single user work again? > > >> > > > >> >Can you give us an update on where you stand on making 'mount /' work > > >> >again from single user? We've been suffering from this for 2 months > > >> > now. > > >> > > >> "mount -r" also no longer works if the FS is marked "rw" in > > >> /etc/fstab. Instead you have to use "mount -o norw". How about having > > >> "ro" imply "norw" and vice versa. > > > > > >Blurk.. norw == ro and noro == rw? What is wrong with just sticking > > > with plain and simple rw and ro ? > > > > ro and rw still exist but, based on my reading of the code, the options > > you enter are appended to the options in fstab so that if you say > > "mount -r" (or "mount -o ro"), nmount(2) is passed "rw,ro" and the "rw" > > over-rides the "ro". "norw" makes mount(8) strip the "rw" and then > > nmount(2) defaults to ro. > > > > I think mount(8) needs to grow some special-casing so that it knows that > > "ro" and "rw" are complementary. > > Agreed. mount -ur / and mount -uw / need to work no matter what is in > /etc/fstab. They are heavily used in many scripts, for example, in > embedded and semi-embedded products. Those work. mount -u doesn't append to what is in fstab, but mount -r and mount -w do. I just always use mount -ur and mount -uw and those work fine. I've always used mount -uw / in single user to upgrade / to a read/write mount and that works (in my mind I'm changing an existing mount, hence using -u). David wants a simple 'mount /' to do a 'mount -uw /' to preserve old behavior where it would magically change it to an upgrade with teh fstab options maybe? I dunno, seems rather arcane to me. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601311339.17828.jhb>