From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May 18 22:20:25 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7FE37B401
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 18 May 2003 22:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-233-57-131.client.attbi.com
	[12.233.57.131])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779D443FEC
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 18 May 2003 22:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4J5IthG004597;
	Sun, 18 May 2003 22:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id h4J5ItnJ004596;
	Sun, 18 May 2003 22:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:18:55 -0700
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030519051855.GB4396@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>,
	current@freebsd.org
References: <20030518225640.S28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
	<200305190317.h4J3H0M7066994@gw.catspoiler.org>
	<20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 5.1-BETA umount problems
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 05:20:25 -0000

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...