Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:33:06 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_vfsops.c Message-ID: <1A949C80-E65D-4349-8028-8B0EB1A91D27@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060421212322.2f5b3fa8.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <200604210714.k3L7EQhD046878@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060421161321.J44089@fledge.watson.org> <20060421212322.2f5b3fa8.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:15:15 +0100 (BST) > Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> 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. > 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 filesystem, but I think mount should only tell you the options that are actually in force. -- 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?1A949C80-E65D-4349-8028-8B0EB1A91D27>