Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:13:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Questions) Subject: Bug or Feature: Cannot umount by Symlink Message-ID: <200001121713.MAA11160@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Before I put in a PR, I wanted to ask if anyone was aware why the following behavior might be a desired feature rather than a bug. For asthetic reasons, I like to have all "real" mounts of removable devices under the /mnt directory. So, I have, # ls -l /mnt total 4 drwxrwxr-x 2 root wheel 512 Oct 13 1998 cdrom drwxrwxr-x 2 root wheel 512 Aug 24 15:07 floppy drwxrwxr-x 2 root wheel 512 Sep 23 17:22 jaz drwxrwxr-x 2 root wheel 512 Feb 10 1999 tmp But many programs (including the FreeBSD sysinstall) expect a CDROM to be mounted at /cdrom. So I have, # ls -l /cdrom lrwxrwxr-x 1 root wheel 10 Oct 13 1998 /cdrom -> /mnt/cdrom Now, the feature/bug is the following, # mount /cdrom # umount /cdrom umount: /cdrom: not currently mounted That is, mount(8) can handle mounting at a valid (it points to a valid mount point) symlink, but umount(8) does not seem to handle it. Now, if the bahavior of umount(8) is intentional for security or other reasons, shouldn't mount(8) be the same way (and as far as security goes, generally mount is the one I a more concerned with)? On the other hand, if there is no reason not to add the extra flexibilty of using symlinks, shouldn't umount(8) be able to handle that command line? Thanks for any insights. If it is a bug, one way or the other, I'll send in a PR unless someone beats me to it (and please beat me to it if you know how to write the fix). -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001121713.MAA11160>