Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:18:55 -0700 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.1-BETA umount problems Message-ID: <20030519051855.GB4396@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <20030518225640.S28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <200305190317.h4J3H0M7066994@gw.catspoiler.org> <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 19, 2003, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > truckman> IMHO, "umount -f /lib" should have failed in this case. > > I don't think so. -f means 'force', so it should be successed even if > this cause something trouble to running system. If it would be > unacceptable, there's easy way to solve it: don't use -f anymore, or > add a new umount(8) option to do that. umount -f can be extremely useful on a multiuser system when you *really* want to unmount a filesystem regardless of who might be trying to use it. However, it also makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. If it only fails in situations where you are absolutely guaranteed to shoot yourself in the foot, that's fine. There's no reason it should allow someone to unmount a filesystem that contains a mountpoint for another mounted filesystem. By the way, why is the original poster walking around and shooting himself in the foot? Sigh. The dangers of firearms...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030519051855.GB4396>